Galery

1

Polina Spartyanova
    The architectural value of the buildings constructed during the communist regime in Bulgaria is the topic of our conversation with architect Ass. Prof. Dr. Todor Tsigov, a professor at the Department of History and Theory of Architecture at the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy. Currently he is delivering a course of lectures on "Architectural Anthropology" for the objective laws of the impact of architecture on people. Before becoming a university teacher he worked on military projects in the design organization of the air forces, he was chief architect of the town of Velingrad for one year and worked at the territorial designers’ organization in the city of Pazardzhik for three years.
    What was the main task of an architect in the design of representative buildings of the socialist institutions such as today's buildings of the Presidency, the Council of Ministers and the former Party House?
    The main task was the job assigned but, in addition to it, an architect always sets his own goal, namely to express his view of life in a creative manner as well as his social position. In the first place, this personal goal depends on the attitude towards the job assigned and the purpose of the building, which will be designed.
    What was the construction at the time and what was its purpose?
    Having in mind the representative buildings in the centre of Sofia that were build in the 1950s, for example, I would assume that the architects had set a personal goal that was not fully in line with the job assigned. These architects were staid personalities and had European thinking, they were educated in Europe. Therefore, it is hard to imagine them "brainwashed" only a few years after 9 September 1944. The so-called Stalinist baroque that was the concept of socialist architecture of the time promoted the use of motifs of the local architectural tradition. Accordingly, in these buildings the architects used architectural motifs of the First Bulgarian Kingdom and the Second Bulgarian Kingdom as well as a massive and spatial organization similar to that used in monasteries. The meaning of such a choice can be found in an analogy with the historical role of the monasteries during the Turkish rule, as in terms of foreign domination they preserved the Bulgarian culture and identity (which is represented in this case by the architectural motifs of the First Bulgarian Kingdom and the Second Bulgarian Kingdom). In turn, the exterior style of the buildings is sophisticated renaissance, with a notion of revival. The complex is perhaps the only "interior" urban ensemble in Bulgaria. The buildings form a sort of a roofless hall and the complex closes itself in this way. By contrast, landscape ensembles with free "flowing" space between the buildings are typical for Bulgaria. In this light, the concept of the representative centre of Sofia is shown as a composite self-isolation of the buildings of power involving discrete suggestions that were probably not desired by the commissioner. Despite the eclectic combination of architectural motifs, these buildings are an example of high architectural professionalism.
    What was typical for the Bulgarian representative construction at the time of socialism?
    During socialism, there were several architectural periods. At first, it was the Stalinist baroque previously mentioned. It was followed by the representative construction in the rational spirit of the 1960s, such as Universiada hall and then subsequently, by the period of representative buildings such as the National Palace of Culture, the government residence in Boyana, some buildings of ministries and local public buildings. Their typical feature is the search for synthesis between architecture and monumental painting. The idea was not to create a work representing architecture with elements of sculpture, mural paintings, reliefs, but to create an integral piece of work in which architecture is equally involved with them in the synthesis.
    What was the influence of this artificial habitat on the psyche and behaviour of people at the time?
    Undoubtedly, the representative buildings of power had a strong influence. For example, the building of the party house in each city was seen as a marker of power. In addition to its architectural qualities, its psychological impact was due to the awareness of what was housed in this building. The accumulated negative perceptions in terms of power inevitably, but undeservedly, transferred to architecture. Yet, if we now compare the feeling of harmony and integrity of the environment at the time with the present one, today’s environment has lost a lot. In those days it was clean and tidy, the buildings were more proportionate, there was no overbuilding like today, the streets were safe at any time whereas nowadays even the lack of maintenance, the scribbles on buildings, and the signs of vandalism distort the balance of the urban environment. What psyche should one have to create his "work" upon someone else’s work, even if we assume graffiti art?
    Why are the majority of the buildings housing the administrations in different cities very similar?
    This is mainly due to their similar function. One of the main features of an office building is the row of rooms with no strictly defined function, and its unsettled purpose does not imply a particular image. Maybe the top of this unsettled purpose in terms of functions is present in the glass skyscrapers by Mies van der Rohe that are a universal space, expandable in height, used for momentary needs and reconstructed many times. The office building itself is a building with an unsettled purpose, because the functions it houses constantly change, which is why it remains largely unrelated to the image. And architecture differs from sculpture in terms of the relationship between function and image too. Beyond this relationship, the search for an image in architecture often leads to formalism.
    How does the Largo in Sofia fit the architectural concept of the Eastern Bloc?
    Except for the Stalinist baroque, the architectural trends in the countries of the former Eastern bloc followed the specifics of the relevant culture and the influences of the global architectural trends. For example, I really like the Hungarian architecture of the last socialist decade, especially the exceptional works by Imre Makovec, as well as the Armenian and Latvian architecture. These are radically different architectures. The Largo in Sofia does not match any universal socialist architectural views, although it dates back to the period of Stalinist baroque. It seems that it resists them, which we previously mentioned, creating the impression that it follows them.
    Is there another country on this side of the Wall that adapted the representative socialist architecture to the previous appearance of the city?
    Yes, at many places. One of the best examples of the integration of this type of architecture is in Russia itself, in the Moscow Kremlin. In addition to the Vatican, the Kremlin is probably the only centre of power operating from the Middle Ages to this day. There are exceptional buildings and structures of various ages in the Kremlin. The Kremlin Palace of Congresses was built among them too. It was completed in 1961 and its purpose was to house party congresses, conferences, and to act as the second stage of the Bolshoi Theatre. The building of the Kremlin Palace of Congresses was designed and constructed with sophistication and it is very modern even today. It corresponds to its epoch and, at the same time, it is part of an architectural ensemble that has been formed over the centuries. The Kremlin Palace of Congresses actually was the first major public building that marked the end of the Stalinist baroque. Later it became a model for other convention centres in the capitals of the socialist countries, including the Bulgarian National Palace of Culture (the structure of the main halls in it almost literally copied the massive and spatial organization of the halls in the Kremlin Palace of Congresses).
    Do you think that the buildings around the Largo have adapted to the new urban environment?
    The Largo complex is a closed complex and its unity is internal. Now the complex has lost its integrity, as it is open towards Todor Alexandrov Avenue. We have already mentioned that the complex resembles a roofless hall. According to the design project created in 1952 by a team led by P. Tashev, the fourth side of this "room" was supposed to be closed by a tall building, the House of Councils. However, only the three sides were completed and the statue of St. Sophia in the place of the fourth is a weak accent to compete the "hall". Therefore, Todor Alexandrov Avenue seems to "rush into" the Largo, breaking the composition. The Largo is awaiting its appropriate architectural completion.
    If we disregard the fact that the Largo complex was built for the Communist Party, the buildings in it are of exceptionally high quality in terms of implementation and form a separate centre of state power. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be appropriate if the Parliament, the main institution of power, moves to this complex to complete, along with the Presidency and the Council of Ministers, the conceptual integrity and the functional continuity of the Largo.
    How could we use the Mausoleum of Georgi Dimitrov if it were not demolished 15 years ago?
    Immediately after the democratic changes, there was a competition to change the purpose of the mausoleum. The first prize was awarded to an exceptional project of a team led by Alexander Naydenov. In this project, a concrete slab on the level of the mausoleum platform and of the main entrance of the palace covers the square between the mausoleum and the royal palace. Under the slab, the design project provides for exhibition and public areas that are an extension of the National Gallery of Art housed in the palace. The cube of the mausoleum, above the slab, takes the form of a new entrance to the art gallery, like the glass pyramid in the reconstructed Louvre in Paris. The slab itself, shaped like a square, reaches the park in front of the National Theatre, thus forming a single and complete cultural centre of national importance, a kind of a "living room" in the city. At the same time, the high level of the square restores the authentic silhouette of the palace (which is an architectural monument) from when the garden was levelled with the main entrance. In my opinion, Bulgaria has lost a lot by not realizing this project.
    Do you think that this centre of the communist cult had to be demolished?
    Of course not, because architecture is always much more than an order. The architect is the one who creates the appearance of a building, not the commissioner. The architect works according to his conscience. Creativity that does not follow one’s conscience is not creativity. On the other hand, an artist remains an artist during the term of every government. As to the creators of the mausoleum, Georgi Ovcharov and Racho Ribarov, we can say about them the same we said about the creators of the Largo complex, namely that it is hard to imagine them "brainwashed". A cultural fact such as the mausoleum of Georgi Dimitrov is something more than a job assigned and its purpose. Such monuments of culture must be preserved, albeit reconstructed, in order for us not to run out of memory.