What Ginzburg's Narkomfin Tells Us About Why Socialism Failed
By Zoeanna Upadhyay on 06.08.21
In 1928, Moisei Ginzburg and Ignatii Milinis designed a building to host collective housing for the employees of the Narodnyo Kommissariat Finansov (the People’s Commissariat of Finance). Completed in 1932, the Narkomfin in Moscow is one of the few built architectural works responding to the constructivist aim of reinventing the everyday life of people. The main principle behind the conception of the building was to collectivise all the areas that correspond to communal functions . Reading, cooking, raising children and doing sport were conceptually removed and relocated within a glazed, collective volume hosting communal kindergartens, kitchens, libraries and gymnasiums. The upper roof also worked as a communal recreational space.
This manner of collectivization attempted to remove the division of labour from the daily activities of the inhabitants and familiarize all of them with the whole means of production- which in turn would eradicate social classes. Individual spaces like bedrooms, washrooms and research areas were hosted in a long block with ribbon windows. The windows opened widely towards the exterior, taking advantage of the natural light and implicitly questioning the closed and interior nature of a “room”. This lack of privacy shifted the emphasis of the space from the personal and intimate to the public. Further, the structure had built-in cupboards and shelves, each with a designated function that implicitly imposed a certain level of regulation on the lifestyle of the residents and emphasised the inflexibility of the design in the private and communal spaces.
Ginzburg in his design for the Narkomfin wanted to question the traditional ideologies of residence and create a “transitional type of dwelling” -a combination of several apartment types in the same building, differing in levels of privacy ranging from two to three-room apartments for families with children ( type K) and one-room apartments for singles and childless couples ( type F). Making sense of the Narkomfin, the architectural review) The joint use of communal spaces as circulation areas was meant to foster a sense of community and encourage the residents to transition to collective modes of living. Children were to be raised collectively to contrast patriarchal relationships. Cooking was a communal activity to free women from household responsibilities.
Image-www.thecharnelhouse.org.
But the 'house commune' idea dissolved in a tide of urban in-migration of rural areas which turned houses like the Narkomfin into collections of overcrowded communal apartments. This became a twisted parody of the communal idea with whole families stuffed into one room and as many as 30 people sharing one hall, toilet, phone, bath, kitchen and entryway.
In Narkomfin, an acute shortage of living space demonstrates a disregard of its original functions. In turn, this makes the objective assessment of the advantages and drawbacks of such experimental communal dwellings impossible and inflicts discomfort on the inhabitants. The rigidity of the design restricted the freedom of the people. This inability to adapt ultimately made the house dysfunctional.
Design is an extension of ourselves. The design for communal living here sought to eradicate any form of identification of a person. It was a completely objective approach, and while it was economical, it neglected the humane aspect required for its functioning. It reduced people to functions. The de-personalisation of space was also intangibly tied to the dehumanisation of its inhabitants. It removed the warmth of family, the privacy required for intimate relations and any scope for creativity. It created housing, but not homes. The aim to create a sense of comradeship and belonging failed and instead created mutual tension and suspicion. It rejected the emotional, individualistic and romantic aspects of design, showing a lack of understanding of the effect of these characteristics on the peace and wellbeing of its users. A fundamental flaw was its single-minded focus on the context and purpose for which it is designed at the cost of other significant factors. The development of socialist architecture sought to free people from the inequalities of a capitalist society, but its extreme execution ultimately restricted their freedom to make individual choices. The architecture became restrictive to the point of oppression. For a design to be effective, it needs to be rational, systematic and functional, but it must also take into consideration the people who inhabit it.
List of References
1. Berlin, I. (2002) Liberty: incorporating four essays on liberty. Ed. Henry Hardy. Oxford: Oxford University Press
2. Engels, F. and Marx, K (2002) The communist manifesto, UK:Penguin group
3. Khan-Magomedov, S. O. (1987), Pioneers of Soviet architecture- the search for solutions in the 1920s and 1930s New York : Rizzoli
4. Le Corbusier, “Le Corbusier to Ginzburg” in Sovremennaia Arkhitektura, 1930 No.1-2, p102-103
5. Lissitsky, E. (1930), Russia: an architecture for world revolution translated by Eric Dluhosch,Cambridge:The MIT press
6. McKay, G.(2015) "The Constructivists," misfits' architecture, published on April 24, 2015, accessed on September 24, 2019, permalink: https://misfitsarchitecture.com/2015/04/24/the-constructivists/.
7. Pui Yin,C. & Yahya,W(2013) Freedom in Margaret Atwood's novel The handmaid's Tale, Scottish Journal of arts, social sciences and scientific studies retrieved from www.academia.edu
8. Rieniets, T. (2009). Shrinking Cities: Causes and Effects of Urban Population Losses in the Twentieth Century. Nature and Culture, 4(3), 231-254. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43304142
9. Sojref, M. (2013-2014) The City Must Perish - Soviet Disurbanist Planners and the Cultural Revolution (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) retrieved from www.academia.edu(ESPS9001)
10. Stiles, R(1988) ,Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution, (p.165-205), New York: Oxford University Press
11. Vronskaya, A.(2017 October 2) Making sense of the Narkomfin, the architectural review retrieved from www.architectural-review.com
Comments