The Moscow Congress of CIAM: the History of Event that did not Happen

The publication highlights the little-studied topic of the failed intentions to hold the IV CIAM Congress in Moscow. The text is based on an analysis of documents from Russian archives and refers to events related to the preparation for the Congress of the Soviet side.The article reconstructs the process of organizing the forum, highlights the chronological stages and main actors on each of them, and reveals the decision-making mechanism. A special attention is paid to the debatable problem of the reasons for refusing to hold the Congress in Moscow. According to the archival documents, key decisions in the process of preparing the Congress were taken by the highest political authority of the USSR, i.e. the Politburo of the Central Committee of the AUCP (b). The article states that the adoption of a decision was determined solely by the interests of the state authorities and had no relation to creative problems and discussions within the professional architectural circles. In the chronological boundaries of preparation for the Congress (autumn 1929 - spring 1933), several key stages are identified. At the stage of negotiations with CIAM on the holding of the next congress in Moscow (autumn 1929 - autumn 1930), the interest of the Soviet side was determined by interest in the Western experience of urban planning and mass housing construction and the possibility of its application in the USSR. At this stage, initiators of the Congress and main practical actors were concentrated in institutions that led the Soviet housing co-operation.At the next stage (October 1931 -October 1932), the role of the leading actor passed to the Soviet state represented by high-ranking officials, who had their own idea of the tasks and form of holding the Congress. The government considered the forum from the point of view of the propaganda representation of the USSR on the international arena and the possibility of visualizing the achievements of the socialist transformation of the country. Such a representation contradicted the nature and practice of Congresses of CIAM. The inability to become the main beneficiary of propaganda gains led to a loss of interest in the Congress by the supreme state power. At the final stage (November 1932 - spring 1933), the defining role was played by a professional architectural community that was oriented towards international exchange of experience and cooperation, despite creative differences.The Congress was prepared on the basis of the Union of Soviet Architects and the architectural section of the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries (VOKS). Thus, in the preparation of the IV Congress of CIAM in Moscow, various actors with their own interests collided. The priorities of state power came into conflict with the interests of the professional community, and this conflict was resolved in favor of the state. The decision on the actual abolition of the CIAM Congress in Moscow, taken by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the AUCP (b) In March 1933, was predetermined by the discrepancy between goals, principles, and procedure of the event and the interests of political power; this decision was only reinforced by the tense economic and social situation within the USSR at the turn of the first and second Five-year Plans.

Keywords

Authors

References