О мерах по дальнейшей индустриализации, улучшению качества и снижению стоимости строительства

Khrushchev’s Speech 1954

The speech Speech ‘On the extensive introduction of indus-
trial methods, improving the quality and reducing the cost of
construction’ was given at the National Conference of Build-
ers, Architects, and Workers in the Construction Materials on
December 7, 1954. It is by some considered one of the greatest
manifestos of modern architecture. Its common slogan: “We
are not against beauty, but we are against superfluity” speaks
of a switch the country had experienced within next couple
of years; inefficient classicism of Stalinist Empire was taken
over by purely functionalist rational style of new empire of
equality where once again each person was promised to have
the same as all the rest. This time, to some extent the goal
was achieved. Within 20 years since 1954 60 million people
were moved to new apartments in mass-scale factory-made
buildings, identical regardless of climate and personal condi-
tions.

Context

 At a time when Khrushchev announced his reform the coun-
try suffered from enormous housing shortage; there were
many reasons behind it:

 \* historically only 10% of housing in Russian cities was built in masonry and wooden structures were quickly decaying in turbulent times
 \* bourgeois buildings confiscated after the revolution did not require any rent payments and maintenance of them
was minimal, 35 years after the October Revolution
many of those buildings were in ruin
 \* war left cities heavily damaged
 \* buildings erected during Stalin’s rule were often luxurious developments for a new ‘petit-bourgeoisie’ class
 \* migration to cities continued throughout the whole century, however, 1950s saw another big wave of urbanisation
 \* considerable demand for housing from released prisoners

 of GULAG after mass amnesty between 1953 and 1960
(up to 2mln camp prisoners were released with addition-
al 3 mln with revoked exile orders.

 In such situation and difficult economic conditions the
Soviet society began disapproving party leadership and an
increasing number of strikes took place throughout 1950s.
It is argued that the housing reform was a response to that
worsening atmosphere in the society.

 Content

 Khrushchev in the speech stated that prefabricated construc-
tion methods would be introduced throughout the union,
chosen against monolithic concrete, as a more efficient and

 modern system, nearly a symbol of a newly industrialised
superpower. This was an emblem of the time, reminiscent of
Le Corbusier’s fascination with a machine, but exaggerated
further in an empire willing for progress.

 The nature of the speech was very humane, it wished for
everyone to live in descent standards that are equal to condi-
tions in which all the rest may dwell. Buildings then had to
be cheap so that the government could afford to give an iden-
tical apartment to every single citizen. It was hence partly
an aesthetic decision but partly a rational one to praise for
removal of any excess in design. Nearly half of the monologue
was spent on giving examples on how not to build, negating
anything that did not serve the sole purpose of function.

 The beauty was in function rather than ornament and such
should be removed, leaving only the machine.

 Khrushchev wanted to centralize the industry, to cre-
ate an omnipresent standard, defining one style across the
whole empire in a gesture far greater than hellenic attempts
of ancient Macedonia. There were to be only few standards
of buildings for each function, designed in a central insti-
tute in Moscow and then seamlessly sent to all the farthest
municipalities where factories would ship ready-made homes
to identical micro-rayons. Bart Goldhoorn, however, in his
commentary to a publication of the speech for a journal
Project Russia suggested that creating a canon of that scale,
by centralising scientific institutions and regulatory ones as
well as designs and products themselves, was the only way a
centrally governed empire could be managed.

 Effects

 A consequence of the speech is an utterly monotonous land-
scape of the former union, globalised to suit the industrial
monster. However, although very radical, the programme
revolutionised Soviet Union, first time in that land’s history
giving an independent, modern home to every family.

 Global context

 The housing shortage that Western European countries faced
after the Second World War was barely comparable with a
dramatic state of housing stock in the USSR. There were
many reasons for that; historically some 80% of Russian cities
were made of timber, which little maintained decayed very
quickly; former houses of the wealthy, even if made of stone
or brick, also quickly became derelict, mostly due to a decree
that made komunalkas in such buildings exempt from rent.
Those two, together with massive war destruction, brought
an end to most of the pre-revolution stock. Stalin did not
improve the situation and built high standard flats for the newly created ‘petit-bourgeoisie’ of the period, which in the
1950s when peasant population was given passports to move
to cities, made the situation disastrous.

At the time of Khrushchev’s Industrialised Building
Speech in 1954 Europe was occupied with building enormous
pre-fabricated estates based on modernist plans derived from
CIAM principles. In the UK, the boom started in 1946 (Town
and Country Act but prefabrication from 1950s), and in France
only really in 1953 (Plan Courant introduced mass-scale pre-
fabrication), hence, Khrushchev’s reform kept the pace with
policies across the curtain, even if those policies were already
heavily criticised by many professionals and people living in
their products.

 Also, politically, one may risk saying, it was not unusual
for the period to use the housing issue to gain votes or calm
the society, the latter being the case for Khrushchev. The UK
did not have its own speech that would revolutionise hous-
ing, a post-Second World War period did not see a programme
comparable to ‘houses for heroes’ of the Great War, however,
first 1945 elections made housing problem the main focus of
the campaign with pamphlets and films being released, even
previously though Winston Churchill announced a project to
build temporary prefabricated houses for millions of home-
less Britons. Similarly, Charles de Gaulle used grand ensemble
for reasons of securing votes and only great political turnuil
in such developments brought their slow end at the elections
of 1960 when Georges Pompidou took over the power.

 Extracts

 Below is a selection of main extracts from the document:

 Industrial methods of construction

 “We have factories capable of supplying our builders with modern
equipment that makes work easier and improves productivity. We
have expanding manufacturing facilities that allow us to supply
the construction industry with prefabricated reinforced-concrete
structures, parts, and construction materials. [...]”

 “And what are the effects of using prefabricated parts? Use of
pre-fabricated reinforced concrete will allow us to manufacture
parts as is done in the plant-construction industry – will make it
possible to switch to factory construction methods.”

 “Our country is engaged in building industrial enterprises,
residential buildings, schools, hospitals, and other structures on
a large scale. This construction programme is of vital importance.
We have an obligation to significantly speed up, improve the
quality of, and reduce the cost of, construction. In order to do so,
there is only one path – and that is the path of the most extensive
industrialisation of construction.”

 Full prefabrication

 “Wall panels and ceiling/floor sections must be decorated on
the factory floor. These products must arrive at the building site
already finished, completely ready for installation.”

Standardisation

 “We must select a small number of standard designs for residential
buildings, schools, hospitals, kindergartens, children’s nurseries,
shops, and other buildings and structures and conduct our mass
building programmes using only these designs over the course of,
say, five years.”

 “In order to build quickly and successfully, we must use standard
designs in our building, but this is evidently not to the taste of
certain architects [...]”

 “They [architects] are all agreed that use of standard designs will
significantly simplify and improve the quality of construction,
but in practice many architects, engineers, and – in industrial
construction – technologists too aspire to create only their own
one-off designs.”

 No metabolising

 “What is meant by ‘changed’? What will be the cost of modifying
a six-storey building? It’s clearly cheaper to put up a new building
than to reconstruct an old one.”

 Improved efficiency

 “In order to raise the real wages earned by workers it is necessary
to ensure a growth in labour productivity and a growth in the
take-home pay earned by each worker.”

 Cooperation between professions

 “The interests of industrialisation of construction dictate the
necessity of reorganising how our design organisations work, of
making production of standard designs and use of already exist-
ing standard designs the main element in their work. [...]”

 No excess

 “We are not against beauty, but we are against superfluity. The
facades of buildings should be of beautiful and attractive appear-
ance, and this should be achieved as a result of the entire edifice
having good proportions, well-proportioned window and door
apertures, well-positioned balconies, correct use of the texture and
colour of facing materials, and a proper presentation of wall parts
and structures in buildings made from large sections and panels.
[...]”

 References:
• KHRUSHCHEV, N., “Industrialised Building Speech, 1954”,

 Volume - The Block, 2009-3, Archis Publishers, 2009