The first half of the 1930s in Soviet architecture was the era of large Moscow competitions, the time of the formation of the "ribbed style" of Iofan's Palace of Soviets, the construction of Zholtovsky's neo-Palladian house on Mokhovaya. And the masters of the Leningrad school, pupils of the famous ensembles of St. Petersburg and the Academy of Arts - I. A. Fomin and V. A. Shchuko, L. V. Rudnev and N. A. Trotsky, E. A. Levinson and others - all of them, it seemed, had to act as a united front. However, the works of the masters of the Leningrad school were devoid of stylistic unity and were often distanced from academic models. So, in the development of Moskovsky Prospect, close Art Deco, exquisite residential buildings of Ilyin, Gegello, Levinson and the works of Trotsky, Katonin, Popov, solved by a large rustic, were adjacent. The culmination of the development of this second style was the Leningrad House of Soviets, and it is its grandiose forms that are considered to be the embodiment of the “totalitarian style of the 1930s”. However, what were its origins? After all, for the first time such brutal aesthetics appeared in the architecture of pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg and even the Italian Renaissance.
The epoch of the 1930s appears as a powerful creative spurt of Russian architecture; it was the heyday of neoclassicism, art deco and interstyle trends - the works of Fomin and Shchuko, the exquisite buildings of Levinson. However, in the mid-1930s, within the framework of the Leningrad school, another direction acquired features - brutal neoclassicism. These were the decisions of the house of the Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR in Kiev by I. A. Fomin (since 1936) and the largest example of Leningrad Berensianism - the House of Soviets N. A. Trotsky (since 1936). [1]
In the 1930s, the masters of the Leningrad school formed a fashion for the Behrens order. [2] However, why was he so popular? The facade of the house of the German Embassy was created at the junction of different trends in the 1910s, and it can be viewed in the context of various stylistic ideas - modern, neoclassic and art deco. Rare both for St. Petersburg and for the master himself, Behrens's facade recorded a significant change in architectural trends. The facade of Behrens was decided by the contrast of a highly elongated simplified order, characteristic already of the 1920s and 1930s, and the excessive strength of a completely rusticated facade. And it is precisely when comparing with the historical prototype - the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin - that the changes made by the master become obvious. [3]
Behrens's creation appears as a kind of manifesto of both monumentalization and geometrization of the classical order. Simplification of cornices, capitals and bases, the use of "neolithic" balusters and even distortion of the proportions of elongated pilasters - all this made Behrens's facade ambiguous and contradictory. In Soviet architecture, this building gave rise to two completely different stylistic manifestations - the Moscow house "Dynamo" by Fomin and the Leningrad House of Soviets of Trotsky.
The granite colonnade of the House of the German Embassy was obviously interpreted in the spirit of Northern Art Nouveau. [4] This gave Behrens' brutal creation a special moderation and contextuality. [5] However, Northern Art Nouveau could no longer extend its influence over the Soviet era. However, in the 1930s, Berensianism (or, more precisely, this brutal aesthetics) gained significant strength and became an architectural fashion. This means that there was something more in the Behrens order than just the influence of modernity, something consonant with the interwar era. This was the completion of a grandiose wave of style changes, the influence of processes that stepped over the revolution and were relevant in the 1920s and 1930s - the geometrization and even archaization of the architectural form.
The house of the German Embassy became one of the first examples of brutal neoclassicism. However, not only neoclassical monumentality is perceptible in it, but also neoarchaic force transmitted to the rusticated facade by granite from which it is composed. [6] Thus, in the order of Behrens, one can notice not modernization, renewal of neoclassicism, but its archaization. Such was the style duality and peculiar beauty of this monument, the secret of its success in the 1920s and 1930s. And that is exactly how the Leningrad House of Soviets was decided.
A distinctive feature of N. A. Trotsky became his special, akin to Art Deco and Behrens's façade, neoarchaic solidity of forms, as if carved from one piece of stone. [7] Covered with dense rustic armor, the majestic structure of the gigantic order of the House of Soviets embodied various motives of pre-revolutionary architecture. However, to what extent was its harsh aesthetics prepared by the era of the 1900-1910s, the development of neoclassicism and northern modernity? It seems that Trotsky's creation was not just the embodiment of the state “totalitarian style” (however, lacking stylistic uniformity in the 1930s), but ended the era of enthusiasm for brutal images and embodied the creative dream of an entire generation. And for the first time the brutal aesthetics of granite rustication was demonstrated by the buildings of the northern Art Nouveau in Helsinki and St. Petersburg in the 1900s, as well as, as the researchers note, the works of the pioneer of American architecture G. Richardson. [8]
The architecture of the Northern Art Nouveau was very artistically sound and convincing. Deliberately chamber, it went back to the aesthetics of a traditional rural villa, enlarged to the size of a multi-storey apartment building (as, for example, in the house of TN Putilova, 1906). [9] However, it could not generate the radicalism of the Behrens warrant. [10] And although it was the northern Art Nouveau and the stone basements of its buildings that determined the fascination of the era of the 1910s with rusticated granite, both directions - early Art Deco in the works of Saarinen, and brutal neoclassicism in St. Petersburg found their own sources of inspiration and took new, decisive steps along the path of transformation architecture.
Let us emphasize that two tendencies of the Art Deco era - geometrization and monumentalization of architectural form - had a defining, style-forming influence both on the skyscrapers of America and on the order architecture of the 1910-1930s. Such were the geometrized details and the neoarchaic silhouette of high-rise buildings (starting with Saarinen's innovations in the 1910s), as well as the interpretation of the order of the 1920-1930s, which was removed from the classical canon. And if the geometrized order was implemented in the house of "Dynamo" Fomin, then its monumental and brutal embodiment was first - the granite facade of Behrens, and then the Leningrad House of Soviets of Trotsky.
The neoarchaic monumentalization of the architectural form of the 1900-1910s, embodied in the works of Behrens and Saarinen, gave a new impetus to both neoclassicism and art deco. [11] And if the Art Deco masters discovered the neoarchaic tectonics of the stupa (as in the monument to the Battle of the Nations in Leipzig), then for the neoclassicism the standard of the brutal and monumental was the rusticated aqueducts of antiquity and the fortification of the Renaissance. And it is precisely this brutal, geometrized interpretation of the order that will be a powerful alternative to authentic neoclassicism both before the revolution and after.
The search for plastic innovation, contrary to the academic canon, will take the form of granite monumentalization in St. Petersburg, which in the 1900-1910s will have an impact on buildings created within the framework of national stylizations, and on neoclassicism, neoampir. The fashion for rough-cut granite will reveal in the historical order architecture, starting from the port of Maggiore, the potential for creating a new, deliberately brutal aesthetics (obviously not related to proletarian ideology). [12]
The masters were inspired by the idea of creating, according to B. M. Kirikov, "Northern Rome". [5, p. 281] Medieval motives appeared in the architecture of the 1900-1910s only as a pretext for the idea that amazed everyone - the synthesis of geometrization and monumentalism. Neither medieval cathedrals, nor the relatively modest buildings of the Russian Empire style have ever been covered with rusticated granite. [13] The monumentalization in the works of Belogrud, Lidval and Peretyatkovich was not a hobby for romance or Empire style, but for brutal images as such, and this interest will be inherited by the era of the 1930s.
The rejection of the national, fairytale imagery and the interpretation of the facade theme in the spirit of granite monumentalization distinguished these works of Behrens, Belogrud, Peretyatkovich from the buildings of Sonka, Pretro, Bubyr. [14] The rusticated buildings of Richardson in the 1880s and the masters of the northern Art Nouveau of the 1900s were only the first motive that reminded of the brutal part of historical architecture. And it was she who became that powerful source that was able to distract from the canonical Palladianism. This was enough for the power inherent in the port of Maggiore in Rome (or the port of Palio in Verona, etc.) to capture the imagination of the masters, to determine the stylistic interpretation of the whole era of the 1910-1930s. [15]
In the 1910s, neoarchaic monumentalization would exert its powerful influence on both the Saarinen's Art Deco stupid towers of the 1910s and the brutal neoclassicism. [16] That unknown power that turns the white marble palazzo of the Doge into the bank of M. I. Wawelberg, built of black granite, or the ocher palazzo della Gran Guardia in Verona - as if covered with soot Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank MM Peretyatkovich, will continue to influence the craftsmen after the revolution. In Leipzig, this force will gather the stone Atlanteans in the monument to the Battle of the Nations (1913). In Leningrad, this aesthetics of blackened raw stone (or rather, imitating plaster) realizes itself in the Vyborg department store of Ya. O. Rubanchik, House of Soviets N. A. Trotsky and others. Medieval cathedrals and palaces of the Renaissance appeared to travelers in an unclean, smoky form, and it was just such, "blackened by time", that new structures were created. Thus, the "northern" character of the neoclassicism of the 1910s-1930s was distinctly archaic.
Simplification, roughness of ancient structures becomes an innovative idea of geometrization. What is needed is not a romance, directed to the exquisite ancient Rome, but a romance that is aware of its rudeness. In Rosenstein's house with towers (1912), Belogrud sharply juxtaposes rough and neo-Renaissance details. This is how the Wawelberg Bank was decided, the raw granite details of which appear as part of a deliberately created "cubic" aesthetics. [17] However, why do craftsmen choose granite for their work, this difficult-to-work stone? This was the artistic task - to create a brutal, geometrized aesthetics in contrast to a recognizable neoclassical theme.
In the 1910s, the works of Behrens, Belogrud, Lidval, Peretyatkovich formed a neoclassical ensemble, unique in terms of monumentality, in the center of St. Petersburg. Its feature was a brutal interpretation of the historical motive. Thus, the facade of the Wawelberg bank (1911) not only reproduces the image of the Doge's palazzo, but archaizes it, it returns from graceful Gothic to Romanesque and provides it with rustic patterns, deliberately simplified brackets and profiles. [18] Rosenstein's second house (1913) was decided by a large order and a contrast of geometrized and neoclassical details. However, he also embodies not just Palladianism, but a special, brutal presentation of the neoclassical theme, and this is not "modernization", but archaization. So, to enhance the monumental effect, the masonry of the wall, like that of Behrens, goes over to the fust of the composite order. Choosing the motifs of the basement floor masks, Belogrud is inspired not by the ideal beauty of the Parthenon, but by the temples of Paestum that have crumbled from time to time, blackened, as in Piranesi's engravings. [19]
In the European context, the brutal neoclassicism in the works of Belogrud and Peretyatkovich was already a unique innovation in Petersburg in the 1910s. The involvement of neoclassical images in the aesthetics of granite monumentalization testified to the awakening of the brutal line of architecture, and its first examples were the stone arcades of Ancient Rome and the Renaissance palazzo. A new, second after eclecticism, wave of appeal to these images pressed rusty in the works of Belogrud and Peretyatkovich of the 1910s, and this force will rule the thinking of architects in the 1930s as well. The neoclassicists of the 1910s and 1930s dreamed of entering the “quarry of history” and using these age-old blocks. This architecture was able to compete not only with Art Deco, but also with the most classical harmony. However, acquiring historical origins, brutal neoclassicism only revealed the breadth of the plastic range of the ancient and Renaissance traditions.
In the 1910s-1930s, it was an outcrop of the great continent of architectural monumentality, a kind of iceberg, obviously foreign in scale, in terms of the concept of man. This process began even before the onset of the "totalitarian century", such were the projects of the Nikolaev station of Fomin and Shchuko, the construction of Belogrud and Peretyatkovich. [20] This architecture was not massive, but it was extremely courageous. After the revolution, few such hyper-monumental buildings were built. [21] The brutal aesthetics of Trotsky and Katonin did not acquire a stylistic monopoly (Zholtovsky's neo-Renaissance was closer to this after the war). [22] Buildings with a giant order or completely rusticated turned out to be unique in the context of Soviet architecture of the 1930-1950s, and not typical. [23] This means that its samples, not dominating quantitatively, rather embodied not a single state will, but the initiative of the authors, and turned out to owe their monumental power only to the giftedness of their creators. [24]
The city of the 1930s, built by Fomin and Rudnev, Trotsky and Katonin, thus appears not just as Berensianism or the embodiment of the “totalitarian style”, but as a monument rooted in tradition. [25] And in the case of Fomin, it was an appeal to the style of his own youth, to the development of architecture, interrupted by the historical upheavals of 1914 and 1917. The details of the Kiev house of the Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR became Fomin's answer to the capitals of the Pitti and Colosseum palazzo, the realization of his pre-revolutionary passion for the Roman port of Maggiore, and the implementation of the style created a quarter of a century ago - the project of the Nikolaev station (1912).
“Reach and surpass” - this is how the motto of pre-revolutionary customers and architects can be formulated, and the Soviet architects of the 1930-1950s thought in a similar way. It was the idea of architectural rivalry that dictated the style of the Leningrad House of Soviets. Option N. A. Trotsky combined both pre-revolutionary motives (the Behrens order) and the great images of the imperial Petersburg (rustic stones of the Mikhailovsky Castle). [26] Such a union won the competition and was implemented.
Thus, the innovations of pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg will determine both the overt simplification of the architectural form and the brutal neoclassicism of the 1930s. The stylistic range - from the Moscow House of the Dynamo Society to the Leningrad House of Soviets in Leningrad - will be determined by the development of pre-revolutionary architecture, and Behrens's creation will outline the steps for both the geometrization of the 1920s order and the "mastering of the classical heritage" of the 1930s. Some masters along this path strove to rise to innovation and abstraction, others to exact adherence to the canon, while the quality of architecture was determined by talent.
[1] The Berensianism of Trotsky's façade was obvious to contemporaries as well, as D. L. Spivak points out, in 1940 this similarity was also noted by the chief architect of the city, L. A. Ilyin. [10] [2] The influence of the Behrens order on the Leningrad architects of the 1930s is analyzed in detail in the works of BM Kirikov [6] and VG Avdeev [1]. [3] VS Goryunov and PP Ignatiev [4] draw attention to this reproduction of the motif of the famous Brandenburg Gate in Berlin in the Petersburg creation of Behrens. [4] As noted by V. S. Goryunov and M. P. Tubli, the Petersburg creation of Behrens was a kind of interaction of neoclassicism and neo-romanticism, as one of the currents at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. [3, p. 98, 101] [5] The facade of Behrens was contextual both in relation to the granite buildings of the Northern Art Nouveau in St. Petersburg, and to its classical monuments - the portico of St. Isaac's Cathedral, the rustics of New Holland. And in the 1930s, Soviet craftsmen will follow these two paths, some will prefer the brutal power and geometrized order of Behrens, the second - the authentic beauty of the porticoes of O. Montferrand.[6] Neoarchaism, as noted by V. S. Goryunov and P. P. Ignatiev, was one of the main trends in European sculpture at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was in this style that the sculpture "Dioscuri" on the facade of the house of the German Embassy was solved. [4] [7] The convergence of Trotsky's monumental creation with the Art Deco aesthetics was expressed both in the rejection of the heavily rendered classical cornice, and in the completion of the colonnade with a bas-relief frieze. This was Leningrad's response to the Moscow portico of the Library. IN AND. Lenin. [8] Passion for Richardson's style, the choice of this aesthetically and technically innovative architecture was regarded by the masters, as MP Tubli explains, “… not as an artistic addiction, but as an introduction to the advanced world values.” [11, p. 30] [9] In the composition of the house of T. N. Putilova (I. A. Petro, 1906), one can notice direct parallels with the architecture of Helsinki - the Eira chamber hospital (Sonck, 1904), and also, as Kirikov notes, the house of the insurance Society "Pohjola" (1900) and the building of the Telephone Company (Sonck, 1903). But in St. Petersburg, the Putilova house became one of the largest and most exquisitely painted houses of the Northern Art Nouveau, for more details about the creative convergence of European and St. Petersburg architects of the Art Nouveau era, see the publications of BM Kirikov, in particular [5, p. 278, 287]. Let us recall that the fate of the author of the house, the architect I. A. Pretro, ended tragically, in 1937 he was arrested and shot. [10] So a characteristic detail of the buildings of AF Bubyr (one of the leaders of the architecture of pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg) is a small order of a special interpretation. Deprived of entasis, capitals and bases, it was, one might say, a tubistic order (from the word "tube" - pipe). Thus, at the turn of the 1900-10s, it was used not only by Behrens. Used in a whole series of works by Bubyr (the houses of K. I. Kapustin, 1910, the Latvian Church, 1910, A. V. Bagrova, 1912 and the Basseynoye Association, 1912), this technique first appears in the buildings of L. Sonka in Helsinki, in the building The Telephone Company (1903) and the Eyra Hospital (1904). [11] In early Art Deco Saarinen worked throughout the 1910s, he built over the railway station in Helsinki (1910), the town halls in Lahti (1911) and Joensuu (1914), the church in Tartu (1917). And it was they who formed the style of the master's triumphant project at the Chicago Tribune competition (1922) and the aesthetics of ribbed skyscrapers of the 1920s and 1930s in the United States. [12] This aesthetics captivated even the retrospective wing of neoclassicism. It is no coincidence that Zholtovsky chooses Palazzo Thiene, hardly the only rusticated palace of Palladio, for the Tarasov house. In the 1910s, it was a whole layer of projects and buildings, from the house of the Emir of Bukharsky (S. S. Krichinsky, 1913) in St. Petersburg to the house of the Moscow Architectural Society (D. S. Markov, 1912) in Moscow. Projects equipped with brutal rustication were carried out by Lialevich and Shchuko in the 1910s. On the contrast of the large Palladian order and the rusticated wall, Fomin's project "New Petersburg" on the island of Golodai (1912) was solved. [13] To clarify, only Romanesque cathedrals, for example, in Mainz and Worms, were not capable of initiating the aesthetics of early Art Deco. If it was fed exclusively by medieval motives, then the monument to the Battle of the Nations in Leipzig would have been created not in the twentieth century, but in the twelfth. However, even the 19th century could not think so monumental. An exception and the first monument, in which the features of early Art Deco are noticeable, can be considered the Palace of Justice in Brussels (architect J. Poulart, since 1866). [14] Note that this range from chamber to grandiose, from a genre close to Northern Art Nouveau to an approach to the aesthetics of brutal neoclassicism was mastered by G. Richardson himself. The grandiose rusticated arcade of the Marshall Field Building in Chicago (1887, not preserved) became a majestic masterpiece of the master. [15] The Second House of Urban Institutions (with a rusticated frieze, 1912), the building of the Main Treasury (1913, with the motif of Dzekki in Venice) in St. Petersburg, and others can be attributed to the circle of brutal neoclassicism. convent (V. I. Eramishantsev, 1914) with the order of the Palazzo Pitti, the Azov-Don Commercial Bank (A. N. Zeligson, 1911) with the unique rustic works of the palazzo Fantuzzi in Bologna. Note that the rusticated arcade of the port of Palio formed the facade theme of the pavilion of the Kurskaya metro station (architect GA Zakharov, 1948). [16] This monumentalization became a characteristic feature of the neo-Russian style of the 1900s. And the masters are trying to extract from the heritage exactly the prototypes corresponding to this task - from the towers of Pskov to the Solovetsky Monastery. However, it seems that this choice was determined precisely by the craving for a new expressive idea - a special syncreticity, fusion, neoarchaic tectonics. Such were the works of NV Vasiliev, VA Pokrovsky and AV Shchusev, such was, in the words of AV Slezkin, “the image of the ancient Russian temple-hero” [9]. [17] The reception of the contrast between the brutal and the graceful, which became the discovery of Petersburg architecture at the turn of the 1900s and 10s, can be noted both in the monuments of Northern Art Nouveau and in the barely interpreted neoclassicism. Such are, for example, the houses of A. S. Obolyaninov, (1907), A. E. Burtseva (1912), N. P. Semenov (1914), the building of the Siberian Trade Bank (1909), etc. As well as the famous works of F. I. Lidval, so the buildings of the Azov-Don Bank (1907) and the Second Mutual Credit Society (1907) combined powerful masonry and flattened reliefs, brutal rustication, graceful and geometrized details. And it is precisely the distance from the true Empire style that testifies to the innovation embodied by Lidval. [18] IE Pechenkin also draws attention to this brutal, neoarchaic interpretation of the neoclassicism of the 1910s [8, p. 514, 518] [19] Belohrud will also design after the revolution. In the style of the Rosenstein house with towers, Belogrud creates a whole series of projects - for Rostov-on-Don (1915), a printing house (1917) and the Tekhnogor house (1917) in Petrograd, as well as competitive proposals for the Workers' Palace in Petrograd (1919), The Palace of Labor (1922) and the Arkos House in Moscow (1924). Note that the influence of A. E. Belogruda (1875-1933) is guessed in the architecture of a residential building on Suvorovsky prospect (AA Ol, 1935) and Smolninsky bakery in Leningrad (architect PM Sergeev, 1936). [20] Moreover, the final version of Shchuko (1913) with three arches and rusticated edicules directly developed the compositional and plastic techniques proposed by Fomin at the competition (1912) - the main motive of the future station was to be the enlarged theme of the port of Maggiore.. G. Bass [2, p. 243, 265] [21] Note that in the 1940-50s, the architecture of Leningrad repeated the choice of the pre-revolutionary era in preference for the norm, rather than the expressive, hyper-monumental form. In 1912, as Bass explains, at the competition for the Nikolaevsky railway station, the choice was made in favor of Shchuko's version, not Fomin's. for example, diamond rustic. [2, p. 292]. [22] The brutal neoclassicism of the 1930s includes the Vyborg department store (since 1935) and a residential building on Kronverksky prospect, (1934) Ya. O. Rubanchik, V. V. Popov's residential buildings on Moskovsky prospect (1938), baths on Udelnaya st. (A. I. Gegello, 1936). Of the projects, the competition of the House of the Red Army and Navy in Kronstadt in 1934 and the variants of Rudnev, Rubanchik, Simonov and Rubanenko can be distinguished. And also the proposals of N. A. Trotsky, these are decided by the motive of the port of Maggiore - the exemplary house of the Lensovet (1933), the library of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow (1935), etc. [23] the same years in a completely different stylistic tone - exquisite art deco, such are the residential buildings of Levinson, Ilyin, Gegello. The VIEM residential building on Kamennoostrovsky prospect (1934) became a masterpiece of Leningrad Art Deco. Let us recall that during the years of designing this house, its architect N. Ye. Lanceray was repressed, from 1931-1935 was imprisoned, in 1938 he was arrested again and died in 1942. [24] The stock exchange in Milan, architect P. Mezzanote (1928), became the rarest example of such monumentality in the Italian architecture of the 1920s and 1930s. [25] This is how VG Bass formulates it, starting from the Renaissance the creative task for masters is “a kind of internal competition for which the author“calls”ancient buildings taken as a source of form”. [2, p. 87] [26] So diamond rustic, an expressive technique of the Leningrad school of the 1930s, first appeared in the architecture of the Italian Quattrocento. Subsequently, however, it is rarely used, such as, for example, Fortezza di Basso in Florence (1534) and the Palazzo Pesaro in Venice (from 1659). This is exactly the kind of rust that V. I. Bazhenov for his project of the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow (1767) and the Mikhailovsky Castle in St. Petersburg (1797). In the 1930s, this motive was used by L. V. Rudnev (People's Commissariat of Defense on Arbatskaya, 1933), E. I. Katonin (Frunzensky Department Store, 1934), N. E. Lancere (house VIEM, 1934), N. A. Trotsky (House of Soviets, 1936, as well as the project of the building of the Naval Academy in Leningrad, 1936).
Bibliography
- Avdeev V. G., In Search of the Big Style of the Architectural Competition for the Project of the Leningrad House of Soviets (1936). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://kapitel-spb.ru/article/v-avdeev-v-search-bolshoy-style-arch/ (date of access 2016-11-05)
- Bass V. G., Petersburg neoclassical architecture of the 1900-1910s in the mirror of competitions: word and form. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the European University in St. Petersburg, 2010.
- Goryunov V. S., Architecture of the Modern Era: Concepts. Directions. Craftsmen / V. S. Goryunov, M. P. Tubli. - SPb.: Stroyizdat, 1992
- Goryunov V. S., Petersburg masterpiece by P. Behrens and E. Encke / V. S. Goryunov, P. P. Ignatiev // 100 years of St. Petersburg Art Nouveau. Materials of the scientific conference. - SPb., 2000. - From 170-179 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://rudocs.exdat.com/docs/index-273471.html (date of access 07.06.2016)
- Kirikov BM, "Northern" modern. // Kirikov BM Architecture of St. Petersburg at the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX century. - SPb.: Publishing House "Kolo", 2006.
- Kirikov B. M., “Modernized neoclassicism of Leningrad. Italian and Germanic parallels. "Small capital". 2010, no. 1. - from. 96-103
- Leningrad House of Soviets. Architectural competitions of the 1930s. - SPb.: GMISPb. 2006.
- Pechenkin I. E., Modernization through archaization: on some social aspects of the style development of architecture in Russia in the 1900-1910s. // Modern in Russia. On the eve of change. Materials of the XXIII Tsarskoye Selo scientific conference. Silver Age SPb., 2017 - p. 509-519.
- Slezkin A. B., Two early works of V. A. Pokrovsky (a church at the Shlisselburg gunpowder factories and a project of a church in Kashin) and their architectural context // Architectural heritage. Issue 55. Moscow, 2011. S. 282–305. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://arch-heritage.livejournal.com/1105552.html (date of treatment 2016-13-05)
- D. L. Spivak Metaphysics of St. Petersburg. Historical and cultural essays. Eco-Vector. 2014 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://e-libra.ru/read/377077-metafizika-peterburga-istoriko-kul-turologicheskie-ocherki.html (date of treatment 2016-05-09)
- Tubli M. P., Leonard Eaton's book “American Architecture Has Reached Maturity. European response to GG Richardson and Louis Sullivan "and the problems of studying Finnish neo-romanticism" // Architecture of the modern era in the countries of the Baltic region. Digest of articles. - SPb. Kolo, 2014 - p. 24-32.
- Moorhouse J., Helsinki jugendstil architecture, 1895-1915 / J Moorhouse, M. Carapetian, L. Ahtola-Moorhouse - Helsinki, Otava Pub. Co., 1987
