Why is the Moscow Metro so grandiose compared to other Soviet architecture(reddit.com)
reddit.com
Why is the Moscow Metro so grandiose compared to other Soviet architecture
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/lz3rj1/why_did_the_ussr_build_such_grandiose_designs_and/gq09pvf/
51 comments
This subthread is particularly nice as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/lz3rj1/why_d...
If you wouldn't mind my asking, what was Soviet life like for you?
I mostly grew up in post-Soviet times.
I really like this youtube channel by the guy who lived in soviet union. Talks about different aspects of soviet life
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClXTAMdHwvWdmFyOlQmEtpQ
It is so good.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClXTAMdHwvWdmFyOlQmEtpQ
It is so good.
It's a bit surprising that this omits the fact that the Moscow Metro is a nuclear bomb shelter. There are huge blast doors everywhere and at many stations it's significantly deeper than Paris of New York. It's also got some of the longest escalators I've ever used in my life. Naturally since you need several minute to descend into the depths you'd want wider spaces and plazas. I can't imagine the claustrophobia if they'd made it to a western scale.. I also imagine there are huge challenges with ventilation and whatnot...
To the other points raise, I never quite understood the multi-decade Moscow housing shortages. The USSR (and now Russia) had internal travel passports, and at least back then you couldn't just pick up your bags and move to a different city. Why were more people than houses allowed to immigrate to Moscow? Maybe someone has some historical insight into this?
To the other points raise, I never quite understood the multi-decade Moscow housing shortages. The USSR (and now Russia) had internal travel passports, and at least back then you couldn't just pick up your bags and move to a different city. Why were more people than houses allowed to immigrate to Moscow? Maybe someone has some historical insight into this?
> Why were more people than houses allowed to immigrate to Moscow? Maybe someone has some historical insight into this?
Labour demand. Moscow used to have lots and lots of factories and these factories needed workers. Increasing industrial capacity was seen as more important than providing every worker's family with their own flat right now, so stopgap measures like communal flats, dorm-style flats, hotel-style flats were used. Some are occupied to this day by people waiting for their proper flat since 1972.
Labour demand. Moscow used to have lots and lots of factories and these factories needed workers. Increasing industrial capacity was seen as more important than providing every worker's family with their own flat right now, so stopgap measures like communal flats, dorm-style flats, hotel-style flats were used. Some are occupied to this day by people waiting for their proper flat since 1972.
I see, so it wasn't some unexpected influx. It was a deliberate decision on the part of the authorities. I guess it makes sense that industry is clustered and you often can't bring the factories to where the people live.
The 1930s time period that this discusses would have been very oddly early to begin construction of deep shelters, globally. I don't know a lot about Soviet Cold War civil defense history but Wikipedia at least confirms that dual-use construction as bomb shelters occurred during system expansions in the early 1950s, much later (and, most importantly, after the introduction of nuclear weapons). Deep shelters were not common prior to the introduction of nuclear weapons as there were cheaper and more practical defenses against conventional bombing, particularly before radionavigation (appx. early '40s).
This puts the Moscow Metro bomb shelter efforts solidly a decade later than London's conversion of Tube stations into dual-use bomb shelters, which started shortly pre-nuclear as a response to the unique challenges of defending London from the Blitz (London was highly dense and radionavigation was coming into use, largely defeating blackouts as a damage control measure). The United States made various runs at similar projects from the '50s to the '80s but they never got particularly far (which is a statement that goes generally for US civil defense efforts), probably in large part because the US never actually faced bombing like Great Britain had.
This puts the Moscow Metro bomb shelter efforts solidly a decade later than London's conversion of Tube stations into dual-use bomb shelters, which started shortly pre-nuclear as a response to the unique challenges of defending London from the Blitz (London was highly dense and radionavigation was coming into use, largely defeating blackouts as a damage control measure). The United States made various runs at similar projects from the '50s to the '80s but they never got particularly far (which is a statement that goes generally for US civil defense efforts), probably in large part because the US never actually faced bombing like Great Britain had.
Answered elsewhere in the thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/lz3rj1/why_d...
Remember Russia was effectively experiencing its industrial revolution in one massive big-boom over barely 40 years. England experienced it over more than a century and still cities like Manchester ended up hugely overcrowded, with people living in squalor.
The English experience was very well-understood by socialists and communists (Marx and Engels themself had kickstarted their efforts in Manchester, after witnessing - and arguably exploiting, given their ownership of factories - the terrible conditions of the industrial working classes). It makes sense that proper housing would have been at the forefront of the industrialization efforts in the USSR, to avoid ending up in those same conditions; but industrialization itself was being pushed at breakneck speed, forever negating any progress achieved on the housing side. Hence a perennial state of "we should do something about housing!!"...
The English experience was very well-understood by socialists and communists (Marx and Engels themself had kickstarted their efforts in Manchester, after witnessing - and arguably exploiting, given their ownership of factories - the terrible conditions of the industrial working classes). It makes sense that proper housing would have been at the forefront of the industrialization efforts in the USSR, to avoid ending up in those same conditions; but industrialization itself was being pushed at breakneck speed, forever negating any progress achieved on the housing side. Hence a perennial state of "we should do something about housing!!"...
> Marx and Engels themself had kickstarted their efforts in Manchester, after witnessing - and arguably exploiting, given their ownership of factories
Marx never owned any factories - if anything he was near permanently destitute and often living off handouts from friends like Engels. A lot of his correspondence is complaining about money problems - often to Engels.
Engels family owned factories, and in fact his father sent him to Manchester to work at one to try to get him to turn away from his radical ideas, but which appears to have had the opposite effect. At several points his family basically threatened to cut him to try to get him to stop his political involvement, but kept relenting. You're indirectly right in that Engels certainly did profit via financial support from his family, and eventually, a few years before retirement, reached partner at the Manchester factory of the family firm.
Marx never owned any factories - if anything he was near permanently destitute and often living off handouts from friends like Engels. A lot of his correspondence is complaining about money problems - often to Engels.
Engels family owned factories, and in fact his father sent him to Manchester to work at one to try to get him to turn away from his radical ideas, but which appears to have had the opposite effect. At several points his family basically threatened to cut him to try to get him to stop his political involvement, but kept relenting. You're indirectly right in that Engels certainly did profit via financial support from his family, and eventually, a few years before retirement, reached partner at the Manchester factory of the family firm.
I wonder if there is a website somewhere listing ordinary sites that actually double as nuclear shelters. For instance, I remember walking through the underground parking underneath Helsinki’s Kämppi shopping center, and noticing that there were huge blast doors, which were kept out of the way and made to seem unobtrusive, but could clearly be closed in some emergency.
> It's a bit surprising that this omits the fact that the Moscow Metro is a nuclear bomb shelter.
That applies to the oldest stations in the city's center. Many stations build even in 1980s are not so deep & suitable for the task, though they may have some special means integrated too.
That applies to the oldest stations in the city's center. Many stations build even in 1980s are not so deep & suitable for the task, though they may have some special means integrated too.
Maybe because it is common? I mean the dual use as bunker, not the glory. I know that part of the main station of the U-Bahn in Bonn am Rhein, Germany has been built like that. Also several deeper stations built by the Hamburger Hochbahn in the 70ies are dual use like that. I guess for a certain timeframe (WW2 -> Cold War) it was like that everywhere where such infrastructure has been built?
For pictures, see https://www.google.com/search?q=moscow+metro&tbm=isch
Anyone I spoke with who used Moscow metro, compared to New York and London, people say Moscow always wins hands down. Huge stations, wi-fi on trains and fresh breeze - not 30°C on central line in London during summer.
Anyone I spoke with who used Moscow metro, compared to New York and London, people say Moscow always wins hands down. Huge stations, wi-fi on trains and fresh breeze - not 30°C on central line in London during summer.
One downside of Moscow and SPb metro that perennially bothers me is how loud it is in the trains. In Helsinki or Stockholm metro (iirc) you can easily talk to someone at nearly normal indoor volume.
Notably, the noise almost disappears if the track leaves the tunnels for open air—so I have to wonder what's special about tunnels in those foreign systems.
Notably, the noise almost disappears if the track leaves the tunnels for open air—so I have to wonder what's special about tunnels in those foreign systems.
As a Russian I'm glad to hear this :)
What's funny is that we usually do not notice its beauty because we got used to it.
And I don't travel a lot so I cannot compare.
BUT
In the past years we indeed got wi-fi, air conditioning and stuff. Some of trains are colored in thematic things, like:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%...
Check it out, they look really great!
What's funny is that we usually do not notice its beauty because we got used to it.
And I don't travel a lot so I cannot compare.
BUT
In the past years we indeed got wi-fi, air conditioning and stuff. Some of trains are colored in thematic things, like:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%...
Check it out, they look really great!
But we also have problems, of course: big crowds, random rogues, some of trains are dirty and smelly etc
I can tell you by experience that those problems are exactly the same in London, Paris, and New York, at the very least. Even in Japan, that utopic land of heavenly rail deployment, you get squeezed to an inch of your life at peak times (but at least the guy shoving you in, will wear impeccably-clean white gloves...)
[New Yorker here doing the “Homer recedes into bush” meme]
That's really cool! Looking forward to seeing those stations and trains one day. Your link also prompted me to check the St. Petersburg metro stations:
https://www.google.com/search?q=sankt+petersburg+metro&tbm=i...
Equally pleasing! :)
https://www.google.com/search?q=sankt+petersburg+metro&tbm=i...
Equally pleasing! :)
As a side note, the /r/AskHistorians subreddit is absolutely fascinating, both from a subject-matter perspective, but also from the perspective of an exploration of the extreme ends of moderation policy. Specifically, the moderators have a zero tolerance policy towards unresearched and uncited answers. If you give an answer that is poorly cited, your comment gets deleted.
The practical result is mainly seen in two ways. The first is when extremely interesting questions end up with no answers (the running joke is entire comment chains of [deleted]s). But the second is that when a question does receive an answer, it is usually brilliantly and thoroughly answered, with assumed followup questions answered as well. And those posts end up getting linked to by other social media platforms, paraphrased and summarized on websites like Atlasobscura, and plagiarized by clickbaiters.
The practical result is mainly seen in two ways. The first is when extremely interesting questions end up with no answers (the running joke is entire comment chains of [deleted]s). But the second is that when a question does receive an answer, it is usually brilliantly and thoroughly answered, with assumed followup questions answered as well. And those posts end up getting linked to by other social media platforms, paraphrased and summarized on websites like Atlasobscura, and plagiarized by clickbaiters.
Yup. If you want to see a great resource of interesting historical FAQs, look at the r/askhistorian archives. It’s a very impressive collection of answers that are remarkably well done.
r/AskHistorians is a magical exception where mods are allowed to be very heavy-handed. On other special-interest subreddits, discussion quality has become very low since 5 years ago or so. The redesign hid the sidebar from users, so people don’t see the FAQ there and just post the same questions over and over again. Knowledgeable regulars don’t want to keep answering the same questions, so they leave. So, it is more likely that unknowledgable people will post crap replies.*
But mods are afraid to be strict and delete bad-quality posts and replies, because apparently there is a way for ordinary redditors to complain to Reddit, who can then assign the sub to other mods who promise to be tolerant. Corporate Reddit wants people asking the same things again and again, and posting replies regardless of quality, because that means engagement.
* (A good example of this is any post on a mainstream travel reddit asking about travel to Iran. Many tourists go to Iran – nationalities other than the US and UK can get visas, and they overwhelmingly enjoy their time there. For 30 years it has been a common rite of passage for Eastern European backpackers, their first trip outside the Europe–Turkey–Caucasus region. On dedicated travel forum websites, people know this. But Reddit threads quickly amass replies from Americans like “Dude, you’re going to get beheaded.”)
But mods are afraid to be strict and delete bad-quality posts and replies, because apparently there is a way for ordinary redditors to complain to Reddit, who can then assign the sub to other mods who promise to be tolerant. Corporate Reddit wants people asking the same things again and again, and posting replies regardless of quality, because that means engagement.
* (A good example of this is any post on a mainstream travel reddit asking about travel to Iran. Many tourists go to Iran – nationalities other than the US and UK can get visas, and they overwhelmingly enjoy their time there. For 30 years it has been a common rite of passage for Eastern European backpackers, their first trip outside the Europe–Turkey–Caucasus region. On dedicated travel forum websites, people know this. But Reddit threads quickly amass replies from Americans like “Dude, you’re going to get beheaded.”)
> If you give an answer that is poorly cited, your comment gets deleted.
That's not quite true. Sources are strongly encouraged but not required. However, if you're asked for sources and don't provide them then yes, you will probably get deleted. [1]
In practice, it's usually pretty obvious which replies aren't going to be able to back themselves up, and they almost always fail the "in-depth" test too making it a moot point.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sourc...
That's not quite true. Sources are strongly encouraged but not required. However, if you're asked for sources and don't provide them then yes, you will probably get deleted. [1]
In practice, it's usually pretty obvious which replies aren't going to be able to back themselves up, and they almost always fail the "in-depth" test too making it a moot point.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sourc...
I kind of wish HN would try to up its game in terms of moderation, because the signal to noise ratio here could be better.
It doesn't have to go to the extreme of AskHistorians, because there just aren't enough experts on all the various topics that get discussed here to mandate scholarly monographs in replies, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.
It doesn't have to go to the extreme of AskHistorians, because there just aren't enough experts on all the various topics that get discussed here to mandate scholarly monographs in replies, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.
I got put off /r/AskHistorians after my question was removed due to violation of "no self post" rule ( whatever that is). The question was "Who owned the bank of England before it was nationalised in 1946".
Less about appearance and more about function, I went to Moscow as an American in 2013. The thing that really blew me away was the fact that trains came pretty much on the minute, so there was no schedule. You just wait a little bit and a train comes by.
The other really cool thing was the Yandex app for routing on the system, which a) worked completely offline, and b) would show you which car of a train to get on and off (and at which doors) to make the most efficient transfer between trains at stations. Simply stunning.
The other really cool thing was the Yandex app for routing on the system, which a) worked completely offline, and b) would show you which car of a train to get on and off (and at which doors) to make the most efficient transfer between trains at stations. Simply stunning.
Some Soviet bus stops are also unusually grandiose: http://fuel-design.com/publishing/soviet-bus-stops/
The first thing that shocked me about it was how deep it is. You go down and down, on very steep stairs. Then you go even more down, it's very different from subways in most parts of Europe, I almost feel like descending to a coal mine, even the air seemed very different.
Stalinkas (apartment blocks built during Stalin's dictatorship) also look neo-classicist.
Building grandiose government buildings also happens in the West. Right now in Germany government buildings are doing fine whereas private buildings crumble.
Building grandiose government buildings also happens in the West. Right now in Germany government buildings are doing fine whereas private buildings crumble.
emteycz(3)
(It was built by slave labor!)
> Why is the Moscow Metro so grandiose compared to other Soviet architecture (reddit.com)
Stalin's ego, turned into an architectural style. That's why.
No need to spend 3 screens of writing on this.
Stalin's ego, turned into an architectural style. That's why.
No need to spend 3 screens of writing on this.
"Stalin's ego, turned into an architectural style. That's why. No need to spend 3 screens of writing on this."
Are you interested in getting a two-word answer or in learning about the history of the Soviet Union, the Metro, its view of socialism, ideals, etc?
A brief dismissive answer like your teaches virtually nothing, and the reader does not come away from it any more informed than before. It also does a disservice to HN by discouraging intellectual curiosity. Not to mention that it's against HN guidelines[1], which say:
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Are you interested in getting a two-word answer or in learning about the history of the Soviet Union, the Metro, its view of socialism, ideals, etc?
A brief dismissive answer like your teaches virtually nothing, and the reader does not come away from it any more informed than before. It also does a disservice to HN by discouraging intellectual curiosity. Not to mention that it's against HN guidelines[1], which say:
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The "monumental" works of Stalin era are monuments of sheer cruelty.
When you go to Moscow metro, think think how many people had to die building it, repressed while building it, robbed while building it, starved while building it for you to see that beauty.
Had I had a way, I would've ordered all and every piece of Stalinist work to be scraped off, and buried.
You don't see foreigners walking ogling at Svastikas in Berlin metro. It all was meticulously demolished, bulldozed, scrubbed, and buried.
When you go to Moscow metro, think think how many people had to die building it, repressed while building it, robbed while building it, starved while building it for you to see that beauty.
Had I had a way, I would've ordered all and every piece of Stalinist work to be scraped off, and buried.
You don't see foreigners walking ogling at Svastikas in Berlin metro. It all was meticulously demolished, bulldozed, scrubbed, and buried.
Well, Autobahnen weren't demolished after Hitler was gone, were they? It's absurd to destroy useful and valuable works just to spite a dead dictator. Swastikas obviously don't amount to that, but whole astounding subway stations definitely do.
Soviet architecture developed in periods, like in other countries, and there definitely was a return to simplicity in 60s-80s. It is strange that author cites main building of Moscow State University as an example of “brutalist” architecture. It may seem massive and intimidating but it is not what brutalist architecture means.
I lived in that building for several years and it is ornate and intricate example of Stalinist architecture, very much in line with subway stations built in the same period.
Subway stations built in different periods used the prevailing architectural style of the time. It is just that not too many tourist see them as they tend to be well outside Moscow centre.
I lived in that building for several years and it is ornate and intricate example of Stalinist architecture, very much in line with subway stations built in the same period.
Subway stations built in different periods used the prevailing architectural style of the time. It is just that not too many tourist see them as they tend to be well outside Moscow centre.
> It is strange that author cites main building of Moscow State University as an example of “brutalist” architecture. It may seem massive and intimidating but it is not what brutalist architecture means.
What do you mean? They don't. They cite it as an example of "Stalinist Classicism":
> In fact, Stalin is most associated with "Stalinist Classicism", which is very ornate, so it wasn't just restricted to the Metro. Example: MGU, Moscow State University.
What do you mean? They don't. They cite it as an example of "Stalinist Classicism":
> In fact, Stalin is most associated with "Stalinist Classicism", which is very ornate, so it wasn't just restricted to the Metro. Example: MGU, Moscow State University.
Where does the author name Moscow State Uni as an example of brutalism? I can only find a paragraph where they associate it with Stalinist Classicism, which seems apt:
> But the Metro is not the only piece of architecture that rejects simplicity or blandness in Moscow from Stalin's lifetime. In fact, Stalin is most associated with "Stalinist Classicism", which is very ornate, so it wasn't just restricted to the Metro. Example: MGU, Moscow State University..
> But the Metro is not the only piece of architecture that rejects simplicity or blandness in Moscow from Stalin's lifetime. In fact, Stalin is most associated with "Stalinist Classicism", which is very ornate, so it wasn't just restricted to the Metro. Example: MGU, Moscow State University..
Agreed. It's socrealism, prevalent under Stalin. There are similar examples of socrealist, stalinist architecture from my city:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plac_Konstytucji
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plac_Konstytucji
As a child I loved descending into the metro. Meeting up with friends at Kropotkinskaya or Mayakovskaya, waiting for them to show up and just taking in the beauty. It was like an oasis. Then I went to study at the MSU, built in the same period and style, and loved it too.