Across the plaza. The public voids of the post-soviet city = На площади. В поисках общественных пространств постсоветского города

ОУЭН ХАТЕРЛИ



НА ПЛОЩАДИ
В ПОИСКАХ ОБЩЕСТВЕННЫХ ПРОСТРАНСТВ ПОСТСОВЕТСКОГО ГОРОДА





3-е издание (электронное)









Москва «Стрелка Пресс» 2017

OWEN HATHERLEY



ACROSS THE PLAZA
THE PUBLIC VOIDS OF THE POST-SOVIET CITY





3-rd edition (electronic)









Moscow Strelka Press 2017

УДК 72
ББК 85
    H36


     Hatherley, Owen.
H36      Across the plaza. The public voids of the post-soviet city = На площади.
     В поисках общественных пространств постсоветского города [Электронный ресурс] / O. Hatherley. — 3-rd ed. (el.). — Electronic text data (1 file pdf : 92 p.). — М. : Strelka Press, 2017. — System requirements: Adobe Reader XI or Adobe Digital Editions 4.5 ; screen 10".
          ISBN 978-5-9903364-4-5
          The vast, proverbially windswept plazas built under «really existing socialism» from the 1920s to the 1980s are widely considered to be useless spaces, designed to intimidate or at least impress. Yet if they are only of use to those in power, why is it they have been used so successfully in protest? From Petrograd in 1917 to Independence Square in Kiev during the Orange Revolution, these spaces have become focuses for mass protest. Beginning in Berlin’s Alexanderplatz, and taking in Warsaw, Ljubljana, Kharkov and Moscow, Owen Hatherley heads in search of revolt, architectural glory and horror. Along the way he encounters the more civic squares that replaced their authoritarian predecessors and finds that, paradoxically, the old centres of power are more conducive to dissent than these new, ostensibly democratic plazas.

УДК 72
ББК 85

     The source print publication: Across the plaza. The public voids of the post-soviet city / O. Hatherley. — Moscow : Strelka Press, 2014. — 92 p. — ISBN 978-0-9929-1462-2.


ISBN 978-5-9903364-4-5

© Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design, 2014

Palace Square, St Petersburg

                ‘AN EMPTY SPACE CREATES
                A RICHLY FILLED TIME’




INTR ODUCTION
A wide open space, a big city-centre square. When you stand in the middle of it the wind lashes ruthlessly at your face. Surrounding you are buildings, huge things of granite and concrete on a strict axial plan, governmental offices no doubt. You are probably being watched — your presence registered by a bored CCTV operative nursing a coffee in a nearby office — but you know that just over twenty years ago you might have been watched instead by a secret police force. Which can give you a frisson, if that kind of thing is to your taste. The square itself has some movement in it — people are smoking under some awnings in their lunch break, someone else is begging, the kiosks of ‘informal’ commerce have a bustle around them. If you’re in the former East Germany or the former Soviet Union, there’s also something more inanimate — an exhortative statue of Marx or Lenin may be keeping you company, or gesturing aggressively at you for your sloth. Elsewhere, the punctuation is provided by more traditional monuments — a warlord, a Corinthian column, a bewhiskered general. But the feeling of immense, unused space still endures, and that’s the source of that wind, the biting wind that sooner or later will force you back indoors. Oh the square is interesting, for sure, a threedimensional survivor from a dead age, a museum piece. But it’s a mistake, nonetheless. You certainly couldn’t learn anything from it.


— 6 —

     There are few things in urbanism today so unfashionable as that wide open sense of space. Looking round the subjects of this text — at the likes of Berlin-Alexanderplatz, Warsaw’s Plac Defilad, Katowice’s Rynek — the first response of most contemporary urban planners would be a feeling of disgust, followed by thoughts as to possible amelioration. What are we to do with this disaster? On this, traditionalists and modernists can unite. Whichever form it takes, the square will exemplify that principle at its apparent worst — the classical principle of the axis, the formal composition with everything in its right place, nothing left to chance, or the modernist principle, now usually disavowed (though often deployed in other contexts), of the object in space. In both instances, the function is the same: to frame, to create distance, to conjure cheap games with scale and perception. No planner — whether a New Urbanist, one of those Disney-sponsored enthusiasts for the eighteenth century, or a piazza-fixated urbanist of a more high-tech stripe — would want anything to do with these giant, authoritarian creations. But is this just aesthetics, or does their hostility have any specifically political justification? Could it be the case that the uncanny uselessness of space potentially has certain subversive uses? Could it even be that these empty spaces are in fact more genuinely suited to public action and militancy than the overdetermined, ‘vibrant’ bustle of neoliberalism?
     To answer these questions, we need to fix what sort of spaces these are, and what objects they contain. Let’s take a modernist example, one easily disassociated from any direct affiliation with Sovietism: the Kulturforum in the former West Berlin. Here we have first of all a series of architecturally extremely highly wrought products: the insular, finely detailed, obsessive modernist classicism of Mies van der Rohe’s Neue Nationalgalerie, whose various plinths,

— 7 —

platforms and columns seem to encourage supplication, placing the building at an elevated remove from its surroundings; then a marooned neo-Gothic church, a mildly modernist cafe and, facing this, three buildings whose design was led by Hans Scharoun — the Philharmonie, Chamber Music Hall and State Library. Scharoun’s attention-grabbing, demonstrative, expressionist structures sit at the corner of a vague expanse whose indeterminacy draws attention to the drama of the architecture, but does little to make the area feel like a social space. The vague, temporary feel is increased by the gravel paving. Surely it is only the prestige of the buildings, and of the exalted names of great Weimar Republic modernists like Mies and Scharoun, that has stopped planners from filling up the space with malls, housing and kiosks. As it is, the Kulturforum remains one of those last places in the contemporary city where you can still get a blast of the bracing air that once accompanied modernist city planning.
     The lustrous emptiness, coldness and paranoia of this new kind of space is fervently romanticised in John Foxx’s sweeping 1980 hymn to the modernist public square, ‘Plaza’: ‘On the Plaza / We’re dancing slowly, lit like photographs ... / Across the Plaza / The lounge is occupied by seminars ... / Down escalators, come to the sea view / Behind all the smoked glass no-one sees you . / I remember your face / From some shattered windscreen’. It gets to the heart of what makes the plaza, and the Kulturforum, so interesting, and so unlike the tamed urban congestion of contemporary planning — its paradoxical official otherness, its sense of uselessness and formalism, its enjoyment of the sinister. The Kulturforum was once adjacent to the genuine wastes of the ‘death strip’, the lethal empty space where border guards shot at anyone trying to escape East Germany. To see what follows this approach to urban space, we need only take a short

— 8 —

walk to the place that now fills that stretch of death strip — the new Potsdamer Platz.
     An interesting urban mistake in its own right, Potsdamer Platz is an attempt to conjure up the metropolitan ‘culture of congestion’ of interwar Berlin, to recreate a busy commercial/traffic intersection (this was the location of Germany’s first traffic lights) in the spot where by 1989 there was only windswept wasteland. The buildings, especially those by Hans Kollhoff, are finely detailed, expensive reinterpretations of Weimar-era expressionism, while the surrounding malls and cinemas try to programme bustle, refuse to let space fall empty. Potsdamer Platz strains every sinew to create movement, activity, mix of uses; that its ultimate impression is one of great coldness, seldom inspiring affection, is an enduring irony. The difference between its strained attempt at metropolitanism and the Kulturforum’s quiet is fascinating; but the politics of this are more complicated than they may at first seem.
     At this point, a brief prehistory of these showpiece squares is in order. If it comes from anywhere in particular, the post-war urban plaza emerges from a peculiar and often disavowed modernisation of both Prussian militaristic planning and the super-European programmatic plan of Tsarist St Petersburg, which was, it should not be forgotten, an eighteenth-century Dubai — a geographically improbable project in a brutally hostile climate constructed on the orders of an absolute monarchy by the labour of serfs. Its most famous architects, Rastrelli, Rossi et al, were stars from abroad. When these Italians came to designing on this lethal, pestilent marsh in the Gulf of Finland, they took the formal devices of classicism and the baroque and pushed them to unheard of extremes. The cities of Italy or France still had an existing medieval bustle to remove before they could fit the planners’ mathematical prescriptions; so too did

— 9 —

Moscow, where Red Square’s salutary enormousness gave way disappointingly to a tangle of medieval alleys. In St Petersburg no such impediment existed. Accordingly, the salient feature of the city is a boulevard of still-astonishing width and expanse, Nevsky Prospekt, leading to a Palace Square that is similarly unbelievable in its sheer size and flatness. It’s as if the steppe outside this city had to be recreated at its core. Its buildings — Carlo Rossi’s General Staff, for instance, with its colossal archway-entrance framing the Winter Palace — are on an outrageous scale. From here as far as the eye can see stretch buildings of an almost-uniform height, except for those considered worthy of superelevation: the golden dome of St Isaac’s Cathedral, or the cruel spire of the Admiralty, the origin of a thousand Stalinist towers two centuries hence.
     This is, in theory at least, an authoritarian form of urbanism. Search ‘Nevsky Prospekt’ on Google Images and one thing you will most certainly find is a photograph of the ‘July Days’ in 1917, when the Provisional Government shot at a workers’ demonstration. People are fleeing across the oversized road, with no means of selfdefence, no alleys to hide in, nowhere to build their barricades. And yet, when these same workers organised the Military-Revolutionary Committee three months later, they consciously turned the city’s axial planning against itself, channelling power from the boulevard to the Winter Palace. For the next few years that Palace Square, the centre of the Communist International, became the focus of unprecedented street festivals, as the oppressed of Petrograd celebrated their new power. Futurists decorated those columns and those axial office blocks with instant architectures that disappeared as soon as the festivals were over. What is curious is that later communist governments replaced this new form of ad-hoc urbanism with one that directly aped the old St Petersburg.

— 10 —