Architecture of Astana as a projection of ideology of its time

In this paper for History and Theory of Architecture submission, I have looked at the way Soviet ideology and current Independent Kazakhstan ideology has projected on Architecture of Astana. It is a 2,500 word essay, which some of you would find too long to read. But hope there's someone who is interested in this topic and would appreciate some feedback.

Architecture is a code, which allows us to visually read the trajectory of history of a certain place. If time is a linear trajectory, constantly moving from point A to the future point B, which could be the end of time, then history is a record which is coded in various media. Written and verbal accounts of events, regardless of their reliability, on one hand, and visual representations of events, be it cave drawings or paintings on the other hand, allow us to construct our own interpretation of the passed time. Architecture is not simply a representation of history, it is more a visual and spatial outcome of it. An outcome of thinking, evaluating, negotiating the needs of the end user and resources available, designing with the beliefs and guidelines provided by the ideology or style of the time. However, one aspect is true throughout all times. It is the client that defines shifts and directions in architecture, and makes time readable or not readable in architecture. At least in totalitarian regimes like Soviet Union, where the only client was the state, headed by a totalitarian First Secretary.

If a lifespan of an individual is taken as a constant, then perhaps time can be considered as a linear trajectory, along which one is born, lives within a society, uses contemporary beliefs as guidelines and passes his/her beliefs and values to the next generation. Next generation lives according to more or less same rules, continuing the linear trajectory of time. However, what happens if those beliefs are suddenly disregarded and no longer can hold true? Such a dramatic change in values and beliefs of a society cannot occur naturally, as it is very unlikely that each member of a society will go to bed and wake up with completely new beliefs. It is only possible if the 'ruling top' is overthrown with its system of ruling, and the new authority imposes a new system, which is not compatible with the old one. Russian revolution of 1917 has turned entire way of life of the population upside down. The 'elite' was claimed to be 'bourgeois' and exploiter of workers, the rural population was tagged as backward, and a tiny class of industrial workers was claimed to be the engine of the society. The 'dictatorship of the working class' was imposed on the entire population of the Soviet Union, of which Kazakhstan was part of.

Astana was chosen because of its history, a linear trajectory that has several distinguishable points, all of which had been captured architecturally. It is a relatively young city that has experienced periods of fast development, all of which had been the results of political decisions imposed on the city.



Astana during Soviet times - Tselinograd



Astana, previously known as Aqmola and Tselinograd, was originally founded in 1824 by the Russian Imperial army as a fortress in their gradual conquest of the Kazakh steppes. Since then, it has been a small village with a small number of Russian settlers, a church, a mosque and a market. It had remained on the outskirts of the Soviet Union, ignored by post-revolutionary Constructivism of the 1920’s and Stalinist Grandeur Architecture of 1930’s. A small provincial town of Aqmola, has developed incredibly slowly until Khrushchev’s grandeur program of cultivating the «Virgin lands» of Siberia and Kazakhstan in 1961 had been kick-started. The program was aimed at cultivating vast, previously untouched fertile soils to double and triple the production of wheat in the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands of people from all over Soviet Union headed towards a bright future of communal work, as it was promised then, flooding the northern parts of Kazakh Soviet Republic, including Aqmola (previous name of Astana). In fact, Aqmola was proclaimed the new symbolic centre of «Bringing up the Virginlands» program, and was renamed to be Tselinograd, meaning «Virginland Town». A small provincial town, has experienced a dramatic growth in population from 30,000 to 150,000 in just a couple of years.



Such a vast number of newcomers had to be accommodated and provided with services, schools, hospitals, social centres and government buildings. As Soviet ideology restricted private ownership, the town has avoided chaotic spread of shanty towns, simply because of strict regulations of land distribution and construction. Since, newcomers weren't allowed to build their own housing, it was the duty of the government to provide workers with that necessity. A new master plan of the town was introduced in 1963, which was designed with all the attributes of Socialist ideology.

“… architects were relatively free to deploy the new architectural language, one that was driven both by the necessity of providing shelter and by the ideological concepts of Communism. Collective living was proposed in many different forms, and whole cities were constructed with utopian fervour. As there was little food in the shops, much of the urban population ate in communal kitchens erected in the major cities, close to the workplace to improve efficiency. Some of these were equipped to provide as many as fifteen thousand meals a day. They were essentially factories for feeding the masses, a manifestation of the visionary concepts of the collective in the rush to industrialization. The overriding intent was to fold the working population into an indiscriminate mass of labour and social mechanization.”2

In the extract above, the author refers to Soviet urban planning and architecture in general. That description applies to Tselinograd, as it does to all new towns built to foster industrial development. A series of flat blocks, the infamous Khrushchev’s panel houses, were organised around a communal space, which included gardens, playgrounds for children, parking lots. These communal blocks were organised in bigger blocks, with a school, kindergarten, a grocery store and a police station, usually located in the centre of a neighbourhood. People received their own flats on the basis of their length of service, size of the family. Therefore, it was common for residents of one block to be employed by same factory or same type of organisation. Residents were looked at as a social mechanism, which would bring about rapid industrialization of the country, provided with well-planned, organised and efficient habitat.

Soviet ideology stated, «Work hard for the benefit of the commune, and the commune will take care of you». When translated to architecture, this formula resulted in homogeneous flat blocks organised around a communal courtyard with a playground. I have been raised in one of the blocks, and according to my own experience, architectural planning of this kind had accomplished its objectives, in terms of placing people that worked in the same industry together and hence creating bonds to form a sense of society and neighbourhood well-being. I as a kid remember spending most of my free time on the communal playground with kids from families with the same background. We went to the nearby kindergarten, and later attended the same local school, taking the same route home. There was very little room for conflict among kids, as we were from the similar background and shared the same habitat. As for my parents, they occupied the same type of apartment, took the same bus to work with our neighbours and had a similar salary. The whole city was organised in the series of blocks, accommodating people of similar background.

«If the self could be constructed, its identity specifically shaped by educational experiences, then for each individual to willingly blend into a collective totality and to enable the spirit of the whole to prevail, it was necessary that a harmonious arrangement of society be represented, organizational rules learned, remembered, and applied.»1

Christine Boyer in her book “The City of Collective Memory”, argues that an utopian idea that deliberate planning and urban organization of space can alter behaviour and inform a sense of collective, where each individual would feel part of it. This idea was put into practice in Socialistic architecture of Tselinograd, abolishing one’s right to individualism for the sake of the community. The role of architecture and urban planning is enormous in this case, as the city was to convey certain ideological points. Glorifying Soviet industrial and agricultural might and the unity of the collective working class, were the main idea behind the concept of the city. The utopian belief of building communism, when industrial progress and collective work would eradicate need, disease and supplant money. This was a future, that everyone was promised, but until then the society needed to work, and work hard.

Astana – the new capital of Independent Kazakhstan



In 1991 the world witnesses the collapse of Soviet Union, and together with it the Communism as an alternative ideology to Capitalism of the West. Fifteen independent states emerge, among them the Republic of Kazakhstan. The country, once ruled by a party guideline with a command economy, announced reforms to establish a democratic state with a free market economy. ‘Transition period’, as it was called, has kick-started a radical change in ideology, the way economy operated and with it, mentality of people. In case of former Soviet Republics, ‘transition’ was synonymous with ‘chaos.’ The ideology of building Communism was so heavily imposed on everything, and the moment it was gone, a huge gap was left there waiting to be filled.

In 1997, Tselinograd was proclaimed to be a new capital of independent Kazakhstan. After nearly forty years later, this small town was to become a symbol once again. This time, a symbol of a new beginning, new country and new ideology. The town would be a showcase of state well-being, economic growth and new way of living. The only aspect of new ideology that was clearly defined was the fact that it was new beginning and shall be different from previous ‘building Communism for the future’ ideology. Capitalism had been introduced to the economy, while people had been raised in Communism. Democracy was introduced, while yesterday’s Communist officials were still in power. I would call it Kazakh Capitalism.

A new master plan had been developed by Kisho Kurakawa and construction of a new Kazakh capital has kick-started. To be developed over a period of 30 years, the masterplan aims to strike a balance between preserving the existing city and developing a new centre along the left bank of the Ishim River.3

It has been nearly twelve years now, since Tselinograd had become Astana and looking at it, I can comment on my own experience and observation of it. So, how did the new ideology of Kazakh capitalism reflect on architecture built in Astana?

“The landscape of the contemporary city seems to be composed of conflicting fragments, slices or framed views first cut out and extracted from the city fabric, then set up and juxtaposed against each other. Suddenly in Manhattan, as well as in most global or first-tier cities that experienced explosive real estate growth in the 1980’s, it appeared as if someone had twisted Alberti’s beautiful dictum that called for the design of a city and a house to be considered as one, and instead said, “make of the city a large museum, and a museum a small city.”4

In the extract above, Christine Boyer comments on Manhattan. The island that has become the symbol of American Capitalism, after invention of an elevator has triggered a forest of skyscrapers to rise under the only regulation of the grid urban plan. Each skyscraper would be built disregarding its surrounding, with the only objective to be attractive. Competition among individuals as opposed to collective effort of a class in the Soviet architecture.


That description of Manhattan can as well be used to describe Astana nowadays. It seems that new architecture that is being built has only two guidelines to follow. The urban plan, which regulates allocations of land to estate companies and one’s idea of ‘attractiveness’ of design. Since it is the client who decides on the level of ‘attractiveness’ of a future building, then Astana is an exhibition of numerous versions of attractive buildings, varying in height and shininess. The soaring housing prices had led to a competition among individual companies to sell their estate property, which in its turn had led to a sporadic emergence of buildings here and there, creating a sense of ‘an amusement park’. Maximisation of profit is the major driving force of Capitalism, had certainly left its mark on architecture of Astana. It sends out visual messages to the people of what one should dream of, creating a desire of money and fancy lifestyle. Architecture, just like TV ads, has become another medium through which one is imposed a certain lifestyle.

Another aspect of Astana’s architecture would certainly be symbolism. Just like early Soviet commissions were highly symbolic of its ideology, new architecture of Astana is there to capture and commemorate the new state of being. The fact that new part of Astana had been built on the other bank of the river, distancing itself from Socialistic ‘Tselinograd’, is symbolic of a new period. The old Socialist ‘Tselinograd’ and new Capitalist and monumental Astana are clearly divided by a river, but still juxtaposed.

One could argue that new architecture had helped to erase the ‘collective memory’ of socialism and establish a new set of values among the residents. It had helped to create a bigger gap in the social division of population. People have become individuals, hence the bonds within societies that were strong during Soviet period have diminished. New residential areas are built with an intention of attracting costumers, but with no intention of creating a community among its residents. However, the idea of architecture projecting back at the ideology could only be supported by a vague notion of relations within a society that architecture of consumerism had helped to form. Egoistic profit maximisation with no regard for social bonds, has been formed by many factors and architecture being one of them, but certainly not among the most decisive ones.




References:



1 – Boyer, M. Christine. The City of Collective Memory. Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainment. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1994

2 – Pare, Richard. The lost vanguard: Russian modernist architecture 1922- 1932. The Monacelli Press Inc., New York. United States of America. 2007

3 – Kurakawa, Kisho.

4 - Boyer, M. Christine. The City of Collective Memory. Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainment. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1994