Moscow: Rejection of the Past
In Moscow, the contemporary built environment reveals the complex modern attitudes and perspectives towards the past as well as the future. This is most clearly seen through Moscow's post-industrial sites. The development of these sites has been largely characterized by a rejection of the past, seen through current values that colour views of the past as well as plans for the future.
Throughout the city, there are numerous ex-industrial sites that have been converted into retail and business spaces (2). Most of them today – such as Trekhgornaya, Flacon, Garage, Zavod imeni Likhachova (ZiL) and Winzavod – house a number of small stores, art studios, and entertainment spaces (3) (4). These spaces do not differ particularly from one to the other, suggesting they have followed a similar model of development. They resemble many post-industrial transformed spaces in North America. The resemblance to North American development points to a certain attitude towards the past that defines Moscow’s development today: a rejection of the Soviet era and an embrace of the stereotypical “western,” or perhaps what may be better termed “capitalist.” The new spaces that have been created all strive for creativity, artistry, entrepreneurship, and transformation, four notions that underline capitalism.
The urban imagination of Moscow is embedded within these post-industrial sites that form part of the city's built environment. The past has intersected with the present in a tangible sense, as the buildings are a part of the city's past. However, the transformation of these buildings reflects a contemporary rejection of past ideals. There are very few tributes left to each building's roots. There is an implicit will to move on and leave the past behind. This attitude that underlies the developments today is also carried forward, as many of the sites have future plans that are sterile, generic, and quite capitalist in the amenities they provide. The desire to reject the past propels itself forwards, integrating itself into the future built environment of Moscow.
Interestingly enough, Aleksandr Medvedkin’s “The New Moscow” (1938) also contains traces of contention with communism. The film features the Stalin Plan for Moscow’s rebuilding in a way that both showcases the grand plan while also inadvertently questioning its legitimacy (1). The scene where Alesha presents a living model of the city is coloured with laughter and an awkward mess-up that juxtaposes the old city (pre-development) with the new hypothetical. To some, this can be interpreted as mockery of the new plan, although it could have merely been an attempt to show off just how great the improvements would be.
Regardless of interpretation, this is yet another moment where the city serves as a crucible of time and imagination. In 1938, the contemporary view of the Stalin Plan was most likely mixed, given that the film was commissioned as propaganda. The censorship of the film further suggests that the public held a tenuous opinion of the plan, as the government most likely censored the film out of fear that it would lead the public astray. However, it is clear through examining Moscow’s architecture that the Stalin Plan left a few marks on the built environment over time. Today, these Stalinist artifacts have primarily been rejected, as seen in the post-industrial development models of Moscow. Examining the built environment gives insight into the tenuous opinions of the Stalin Plan that existed in the 1930-1940s, as well as an understanding of contemporary collective views of Stalin and his ideals.