The USSR as perceived by the British: an excerpt from the book "I came, I saw, I was defeated!"

Contents:

Garage Museum of Contemporary Art presents Ksenia Malich's book "Veni, Vidya, Vozdeyan!", which examines the interaction between architects from the Soviet Union and Great Britain between the 1930s and 1960s. With the publisher's permission, we are pleased to present a chapter by Frank Yerbury, which recounts the visit of British architects to the Soviet Union.

* * *

In 1931, the SCR (Society for Cultural Relations between the British Commonwealth and the USSR) began holding regular "We-Were-in-Russia" dinners, at which participants shared their impressions of recent visits to the Soviet Union. British specialists working in the fields of urban planning and housing construction expressed interest in gaining unique professional experience. At the same time, in June 1931, the British Embassy in Moscow informed the Foreign Office in London of the Council's growing interest in urban planning. This led to several fact-finding trips. In 1931, a Moscow engineer inspected the London Underground, and the following year, a team of engineers from London Underground advised the designers of the Moscow Metro. In 1932, Lord Marley, a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Committee and chairman of the Garden Towns and Suburban Committee, established in 1931 under the British Ministry of Health, also visited the Soviet Union. The idea of ​​the Birobidzhan project particularly interested Marley. At the same time, engineer Kenneth Dodd, working for the Ministry of Planning, was studying the construction of new medical facilities in Russia and, in 1933, published a separate report on his visit, describing "the greatest system of state planning the world has ever seen." Dodd considered the centralization of administrative resources to be one of the notable advantages of this system for urban redevelopment, whereas in the West, private property and the large number of stakeholders hampered the implementation of large-scale urban reforms. In 1932, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, prominent representatives of Fabian socialism and advocates of the gradual overcoming of capitalism, who collaborated with the Labour Party, visited Moscow. Their trip culminated in the publication of a two-volume work entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?, which gained popularity in British humanities circles.

At a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the London Architectural Association, Frank Yerbury, who returned from the USSR in 1932, presented an interesting report. As already mentioned, he traveled to the Soviet Union in the company of colleagues. In July of that year, newspapers published a notice of the upcoming visit: "A group of English architects from London will arrive in Leningrad on July 14. Their goal is to study new government and industrial construction projects, including recently erected clubs, theaters, and schools. After Leningrad, the architects plan to visit Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, and Stalingrad. A second group of English architects is expected to arrive in early August."

In a note published on July 19, Yerbury became the main character: "A meeting between architects from England and representatives of the Leningrad architectural community took place at the Molotov House of Engineering and Technical Workers. During their four-day stay in Leningrad, the guests shared their impressions. The secretary of the Architectural Society of England, Mr. Yerbury, expressed his feelings with the following words: 'I came, I saw, and I was conquered.' Another member of the group, the architect Herbert Williams, noted: 'I am shocked by everything I saw. I have only one desire—to stay in the USSR to work.'"

Judging by newspaper reports and archival photographs collected by Yerbury, a very diverse excursion program was prepared for the British architects. As mentioned earlier, not all participants in this tour were supporters of modernist ideas, but in the early 1930s, VOKS (the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries – Ed.) was still focused on showcasing cutting-edge architecture, in which Soviet specialists seemed less competitive.

The journey, like many similar ones of that era, began in Leningrad, where the guests arrived by ship from London. In this city, which Yerbury devotes most attention to, the architects were able to see the Hermitage, Anichkov Palace, and Kazan Cathedral, where the Museum of Atheism exhibit was on display, as well as the main historical ensembles. The English architects also visited recently constructed buildings, such as the factory kitchens on Vasilievsky Island and Moskovskoe-Narvskaya Street, as well as the Gorky Palace of Culture and the Palace of Culture of the First Five-Year Plan.

In Moscow, they visited such iconic sites as the Kremlin, Red Square, the Izvestia newspaper building, the First House of Soviets, and the Narkomfin Building. In Nizhny Novgorod, they toured both old estates and the new House of Soviets. The journey then continued along a picturesque route along the Volga, including the cities of Kazan, Saratov, Samara, Stalingrad and others, where Yerbury was more interested not so much in architectural solutions as in the ethnographic and historical aspects of the local culture.

Was "Mr. Yerbury" really defeated? Judging by his words, he deliberately avoided reading both before and after his trip, so as not to lose the freshness and objectivity of his perception. Nevertheless, he noted that the country was filled with "contradictions and oddities."

For example, Yerbury was struck by the difference in living conditions and status of various social groups. Expecting to see an example of class equality, he was surprised to encounter a completely opposite reality. It turned out that there are different categories of tickets for trains and ships. The crowd attending a tennis tournament in Moscow, in dress and manners, contrasts sharply with the workers relaxing in the parks. In the lower saloons of Volga steamships, one encounters poor peasants, whom he thought should no longer exist in modern times, while on the upper decks, gentlemen in white suits enjoy the picturesque landscapes. Ultimately, the workers face such harsh conditions that they begin to seek solace in alcohol. At the same time, he notes that factories offer free crèches, and the state has developed a modern healthcare system, providing access to children's clinics, women's clinics, and sanatoriums. Yerbury was particularly impressed by the rowing clubs located on the Moscow River and in the parks. However, by the end of his trip, he found the parks a bit boring—probably because English guests were too often shown such exemplary leisure areas. Frank and his companions quickly grew tired of the posters containing anti-religious, anti-capitalist, and anti-militarist slogans, as well as the drawn-out propaganda speeches. Architect Yerbury singled out the mausoleum on Red Square and its lighting as one of the most impressive modern projects in the USSR. However, in his opinion, the new buildings, in general, lacked interesting forms, composition, or texture. British architects were disappointed with the poor quality of building materials and the insufficiently skilled workforce, which led to the buildings appearing outdated within the first months after completion. Monotonous color schemes, large glass surfaces in a cold and damp climate, and sloppy finishing—all of this was noticeable to Yerbury and his colleagues.

Nevertheless, they noted the original typologies proposed by Soviet architects to reflect the new lifestyle, such as workers' clubs with theater halls and children's rooms, factory kitchens, and residential complexes. However, even here there was room for criticism. After visiting the Narkomfin Building, Yerbury concluded that the concept of grouping people based on their professional affiliation was inappropriate, as it limited the choice of neighbors. The architect attributed these shortcomings to the fact that the new Soviet architecture was the result of destructive changes rather than organic development. The desire to move away from the past has surpassed logic and common sense.

It can be assumed that even among British architects, inclined to loyalty, examples of modern construction in Russia looked too extravagant. For example, Yerbury doesn't even mention the Tsentrosoyuz building, being built in Moscow based on Le Corbusier's design. He's much more drawn to the story of Quarenghi and the sweet girl from the Moscow registry office, whose photo he later displays during his presentation to architects at the London Architectural Association.

However, as soon as Yerbury visits Boris Iofan's construction site and notices the newly completed Government House (the First House of Soviets on Bersenevskaya Embankment), his opinion immediately changes for the better. Iofan emerges as a promising and gifted architect, and the House of Soviets becomes a symbol of Russian architecture beginning to overcome its previous limitations.

Most likely, the English travelers also visited Soviet architectural studios, as Yerbury enthusiastically shares his opinion that Russian architects possess unique drawing skills and create inimitable concepts. He asserts, "There's nothing an English architect could pass on to his Russian colleague." However, as foreigners noted, there was a shortage of skilled workers to carry out these ambitious projects. Additional difficulties arose from the need to develop standard designs that meet the needs of various regions of a vast country.

In During their visits to studios, the travelers apparently inquired deeply about the details of the Soviet architect's work with their hosts. Their questions concerned salary levels, the possibility of independent participation in competitions, the number of women on design teams, and the specifics of student internships. At the time, professional circles frequently discussed the chances of finding employment in the USSR, and Yerbury urged his colleagues to abandon such illusions, emphasizing that, when converted into pounds sterling, the salary would be quite modest. Furthermore, any British specialist would face serious competition, including from students. Yerbury and his companions spoke with great respect about the attentive attention to historical heritage and the high-quality restoration, the results of which can be seen everywhere, although some mansions and churches have been adapted for new purposes. "I expected to encounter a country where not a single trace of its former beauty remained," but it is difficult to imagine "a more magnificent landscape than Leningrad."

In March 1934, two years later, Yerbury's colleague, Mary Jacqueline Tyrwhitt, departed for the Soviet Union. She was a graduate of the Royal Horticultural Society and had previously studied at the London Architectural Association. In the 1940s, Tyrwhitt would become an active member of the British group dedicated to modern architectural research, known as MARS. Together with like-minded individuals, she developed ideas for modernist urban planning, not as interpreted by Corbusier, but within the framework of an adapted concept of the garden city and the works of Patrick Geddes. In the 1940s, Tyrwhitt also contributed to The Architect's Yearbook, a magazine founded by Jane Drew. The contributors to this publication considered how the utopian social and aesthetic ideas of 1930s modernism could be used to rebuild British construction after the war. Mary Jacqueline Tyrwhitt’s article opened the first issue of the journal in 1945.

Ward, S. Soviet Communism and the British Planning Movement: Rational Instruction or Utopian Imagination? P. 502.

Moscow in the Making / E. Simon, S. Simon, W. A. ​​Robson, J. Jewkes. 1937. Reprinted edition, Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2014. P. XII.

Taylor, N. The Enigma of Lord Marley: Nicole Taylor Explores the Life of an English Peer in Stalin’s Jewish Autonomous Region // Jewish Quarterly. 2005. Summer. Issue 198.

Dodd, K. Planning in the USSR // Journal of the Institute of Urban Planning. 1933. No. 20. P. 34.

5 Webb S., Webb B. Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, 1935. In the 1937 edition, the question mark in the title was removed.

6 English architects arrived in the country // Krasnaya Gazeta. 1932. July 9. Evening issue. P. 2.

Meeting of architects from the Soviet Union and Great Britain // Krasnaya Gazeta. July 19, 1932. Evening issue. Page 2.

The Yerbury photo archive is housed at the London Architectural Association.

F. Yerbury's book "Impressions of Russia", p. 124.

10 Ibid. P. 128.

11 Ibid. P. 117.

12 RIBA. Jacqueline Tyrwhitt Archive. Box 63.

Shoshkes, E. (2009) examines the influence of Jacqueline Tyrwhitt on transnational debates about modern urban planning and design between 1941 and 1951. The article was published in Urban History, Vol. 36, No. 2, pages 265.

Tyrwhitt, J. (2009). Urban Planning: The Architectural Yearbook. Vol. 1. London: Elec, 1945. P. 11.

See also:

• The Palace of Soviets in Moscow was intended to be a remarkable architectural structure, symbolizing the power and ambition of Soviet power. The project, developed in the 1930s, was conceived as a grandiose complex that was to occupy a central place in the capital. The architectural concepts included the use of the latest technologies and materials to create a building that was both majestic and functional.

  The main element of the structure was planned to be a huge colonnade, emphasizing the significance of the site. The interior spaces were to include meeting rooms, exhibition spaces, and various administrative offices. Additionally, extensive plazas and park areas were planned around the building, creating a harmonious public space.

  However, despite all the ambitious plans, the project was never fully realized, and the Palace of Soviets remained only at the conceptual stage. Nevertheless, his ideas and designs continue to generate interest and discussion among historians and architects.

• Five famous projects by the architect Le Corbusier.
• Grandeur and sophistication: 5 remarkable works by Vera Mukhina