Futures of the past, pasts of the future. The politics of the old in a contemporary city

FUTURES OF THE PAST, PASTS OF THE FUTURE: the politics of the old in a contemporary city The three-month-long research studio Futures of the past, pasts of the future took place between September and December 2013 as part of the second year curriculum of the Urban Studies’ master program at the Faculty of Architecture, Estonian Academy of Arts. We started from the set of given concepts. In alphabetical order, they were architectural value, conservation, heritage, historicity, history, landmark, memory, milieu, monument, nostalgia, preservation, protection, remembrance, representation, restoration, tradition.

The concepts led to the following questions. What is the history of preservation regime itself? What are the discourses, practices and technologies of heritage production? What are the conflicts and contradictions generated by the ever-growing scale of the focus of of preservation practices (from objects to ensembles, districts, millieux, and intangible assets) What are the strategies of legitimizing architectural values, the old ones and the new ones? How is the border between the valuable and the worthless policed in different historical contexts? Whose memories are invested in those everyday spaces, which are jointly forgotten by the disciples of heritage values and pioneers of iconic architectures?

Is there a third position between making invisible the experiences and memories of spaces of the everyday and making them visible as mere ‘cultural values’ under the nostalgically driven notion of millieu and its planning policies? How do representations of spaces on centre and on periphery, and the very concepts of centrality and peripherality, change throughout the history? Etc. Within the framework of these concepts and questions, students were asked to propose their own topic and methods at the beginning of the studio. They had to justify their choices, as topics and methods shifted during studio’s progress. The supervisor role was not unlike that of a curator who co-produces individual works by selecting trajectories into which they will be channelled and struggles to keep conceptual coherence of the whole endeavour at the same time. Four students made it all the way through and their contributions are the following.

In her study Post-socialist movements of Lenin: travels around Estonia, Raina Lillepõld documents removal and

relocation of statues of Lenin and Stalin in Estonian cities in the years after (and, surprisingly, already before) the breakup of the Soviet Union. The case of Lenin from Tartu, which resided in front of the Estonian Defense League’s representative building between 1952 and 1990 is perhaps the most illuminating. It was moved to local kolkhoz at the dawn of August 23rd and moved to the city’s main square just few hours later; after the commotion on the square it was relocated to the local scrapyard, where it survived 15 years. In 2005, it was transported to Estonian History Museum in Tallinn.

The symbolic status of the Lenin’s statue is unclear. The spirit of a post-socialist society has torn the symbolic mask off the statue, yet not enough to accept that the statue is nothing more than the matter which forms it either. Presently, the statue rests in the backyard of the museum, awaiting future transformation of the concept of history.

The attitudes to actual places, where the statues resided for decades, are similarly ambiguous. In some, such as in the case of Narva, empty pedestal highlights the absence; in other, such as in the cases of Tartu and Tallinn, places have been entirely re-designed and coordinates that would allow exact identification of the location of statues were eliminated. Raina complements her study with a set of schemes that compare the design layout of the places before and after the removal of statues.

The key information that a tourist visiting Tallinn possesses is that the city’s Old Town is registered as a UNESCO World Heritage site since 1997. Maria Derlõš’s contribution UNESCO and Tallinn’s Old Town: acting at a distance uncovers the politics of preservation of this global organization and its interplay with local actors.

Lacking legally binding instruments, UNESCO relies on its symbolic power; it is present and absent at the same time. Its main political instrument is that of a ‘cause’: public, mediated appeal against a development project deemed disrespectful of urbanistic context.

Maria studies initiatives that preceded the accession of the year 1997 and identifies the main ‘causes’ that UNESCO was part of during the last one and a half

decade. She analyses realized and unrealized projects, such as Old Town Studio Theatre project on Sauna street (1998), Suurtüki courtyard development (2006), and Old Town Management Plan (2008-), and brings into focus relations between the involved actors (besides UNESCO, these include property owners, architects, preservationists, etc.) their contrasting motives and objectives, and trajectories of the cases. Maria’s viewpoint is not the familiar criticism against extensive preservation regulations that inhibit creative architectural practice. Rather, the study illuminates UNESCO’s politics towards the Tallinn’s Old Town in architectural terms (façades, volumes, street lines) and highlights different social consequences – in terms of use, access, and ownership – that this politics triggers and that are often ignored by local decision-makers.

Pille Koppel’s work The imaginary spaces of Tallinn’s housing estates: films and milieux focuses on the images and representations of Tallinn’s Mustamäe, Lasnamäe and Väike-Õismäe. These are, firstly, found in the output of fourty years of cinematic representation of these districts, and secondly, in the narrative strategies mobilized (or not yet) in the process of turning these districts into milieu areas.

What are some of the persistent categories of objects that have appeared again and again to cinematic audiences? The first part of Pille’s contribution is a visual meditation on the films about Mustamäe, Lasnamäe and Väike-Õismäe. The films are stripped of their narrative movement, time is stopped, pictures appear; snapshots are then arranged into regular grid according to selected categories.

In the second part Pille looks at the debates surrounding the inclusion of panel housing estates among milieu areas. The look at the exponential growth of districts labelled as having a milieu value, and the fact that all of the inner city districts that encircle Tallinn’s Old Town have been ‘awarded’ such a label, lead to a hypothesis that the Mustamäe, Lasnamäe and Väike-Õismäe will represent the next logical frontier for the preservation efforts. For each district in each historical time, it is either impossible to imagine it as having the milieu value (Lasnamäe today) or as not having it (Kalamaja today). What is fascinating, and what is confirmed in the interviews with municipal representatives, is the lack of understanding of how the seemingly objective milieu value of a district has been produced in the place which was ‘objectively stigmatized’ only recently (Kalamaja 30 years ago). Studies and debates about the future role of

‘experts’ in the likely production of millieu values of the ‘objectively stigmatized’ areas of today (Lasnamäe in 30 years) practically do not exist. The case of Väike-Õismäe is a liminal one and Pille studies the recent proposal to include the district on the list of milieu areas.

The final contribution to the studio is Between bogs and villas: the ruins of socialism and capitalism in Pääsküla by Andra Aaloe. This is a remarkable historical ethnography of a seemingly unremarkable site wedged between forest bogs and single-family houses in Tallinn’s district of Pääsküla. The study reads the dreams and failures of socialism and capitalism written in the historical trajectory of the premises developed by Estonian Consumer Cooperatives Republican Union in 1980s.

Andra employs Robert Smithson’s notion of ruin-in-reverse and plays with the idea of a frozen time. One of the site’s constructions was initially planned to be a large-scale storage for frozen food, yet it was never completed and it has remained frozen in unfinished condition of a ruined Dom-Ino-like skeleton for more than two decades. In the 1990s it was reused as a scrapyard, but the entrepreneurship was closed down as soon as the supply of obsolete metal from the former Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic came to a halt. The other building was in the spotlights in the early 1990s, when it was redeveloped into the first hypermarket in the Baltics, but its fame did not last much longer than the proverbial fifteen minutes. Still another building on the site houses the Museum of Consumption that hardly anyone knows about. There is also what was left from the Union’s archive, which was discarded during the ‘transition period’ as a worthless paper junk; the everyday history of the site is carried on in memories of a handful of devout, lifelong employees.

The studio Futures of the past, pasts of the future, in which we analysed the politics of the old did not succeed to answer all the questions with which we started, but we succeeded in posing many new ones. All in all, this is a small contribution to the debate on how actors, objects and desires circulate and shape a contemporary city.

Maroš Krivý

POST-SOCIALIST MOVEMENTS OF LENIN: TRAVELS AROUND ESTONIA

Raina Lillep천ld

CONTENT

Introduction: Transferring of Socialism Tartu

History of the site

Soviet transformation

Travels of the monument

Re-design of the site

Tallinn

History of the site

Soviet transformation

Travels of the monument

Re-design of the site

Narva

History of the site

Soviet transformation

Travels of the monument

Re-design of the site

Tallinn Rakvere Pärnu Conclusion References

INTRODUCTION: TRANSFERRING OF SOCIALISM 3 5

14

20

26 28 30 32 34

Every city has its own urban memory and its own memory places. French historian Pierre Nora¹ has claimed that these sites of memory (lieu de mémoire) have a purpose: to stop time and to keep us remembering as these sites are places where (cultural) memory crystallizes and secretes itself. Monuments and the sites where monuments are situated are definitely one of those places. Another French historian JeanPierre Minaudier² who has been comparing Estonian and French national memory, has claimed that Estonians are far less attached to material and monumental side of the memory sites than French, tending to give more emphasis to anti-material aspects of memory places. According to him, the only monuments that Estonians have embraced as part of their national memory are various Vabadussõja (Freedom War) monuments.

Over the course of time, our memory sites have witnessed many changes. During soviet occupation all over Estonia, in most of our biggest towns, our memory places were redefined as the old Republican monuments were taken down or destroyed and the town centres or other key locations had numerous Stalin, Lenin or other communist monuments and statues erected instead. After the newly gained independence in 1991 these sites have not only been transformed physically but there has been a need to transform the meaning, value and shift in perception and also the memory itself on those places.

In this study I will not analyse a political discourse regarding different collective memories, and also I will not tap into extensively scrutinised Bronze Soldier case as I agree with Estonian historian Marek Tamm³ who asserts that tensions or challenges in society are not best solved by monuments (either placing or removing them). Tamm believes that though monuments are erected for the past, having eternity in mind, they nevertheless perceive the values or tendencies of the present. In my opinion the sites where the monuments once stood and

how these sites are now transformed indicate how we want these sites to be remembered now at the present.

However as our memory sites are so thoroughly redesigned and reinterpreted, there are several questions that have emerged from urban environment point of view. Have the anti-material nature of Estonian collective memory helped to dismiss the memory sites of soviet monuments? Is this because how these sites have been reinterpreted and changed? Or do these sites still carry symbolic or memory values?

Also, as with any monument there is one important aspect to consider and it is the art value of sculptors’ or architects’ work. Although in the USSR there was entire industry of mass-producing the statutes of soviet (cult) leaders, we cannot overlook the fact that also very prominent Estonian sculptors and architects have designed lots of these monuments in Estonia. Do the future generation feel the need to preserve these artefacts for their art value? Or have Estonians taken a very pragmatic approach - life goes on, changes are necessary – and both the sites and the artwork will be lost? As most of these soviet monuments were erected during 1950-s, they were designed according to stalinistic architecture and planning which in turn has taken its clues from classical forms – it is all about central focus points, symmetry and grand vistas. So how these central focus points have been changed?

In this study I will try to answer some of these questions. I will focus into how various central sites of our urban landscape have changed after the soviet monuments have been dismantled and how these changes have been carried out. I will also try to map the actual journeys of some of these monuments, as it seems that right after the heavy bronze statues were taken down they were passed around like hot potatoes as nobody quite knew what to do with them or wanted keep or claim ownership of them.

3

In order to illustrate these changes I have chosen six case-studies from five different cities, namely Tartu, Tallinn, Narva, Viljandi, Rakvere and Pärnu. In Tallinn I will explore two different sites – on near Balti Raliway Station and one in current Rävala Av. (former Lenini Av.). There are similarities how these towns have dealt with their soviet monuments but also some differences as

well. In most cases the monument in question is Lenin but in Balti Railway Station there was first Stalin monument and then the monument to Communist coup d’état on December 1st 1924. The first three cases I will analyse in more detail, trying to also have a closer look how the sites and urban environment with the use of the place have transferred as well.

TARTU

HISTORY OF THE SITE Being the second largest city in Estonia with population of nearly 100 000, it was clear that Lenin’s monument needed to be in a very prominent place. On the monument’s location of Riia Hill intersection there is a fork of five roads with two major roads from Võru and Riia leading into down-town. In the middle of the 19th century there was a postal station and the square in front of it was called Station square. The postal station was demolished in 1939 and in its place Estonian Defence League’s representative building was constructed (architects A. Kotli and E. Lohk), today known as the Baltic Defence College, and the square gained more of a ceremonial function

4

In the middle of the 19th century there was a postal station which was demolished in 1939

5

SOVIET TRANSFORMATION I believe that address Riia Rd 12 was chosen for Lenin’s monument most likely because of the topographical motivation as the site is on ascent and has long opening vistas towards down-town as well as it is accessible by five streets. Perhaps also the fact that the building behind the location used to be Estonian Defence League’s building and during soviet occupation was used by Academy of Science (Teaduste Akadeemia) and later by Estonian Agricultural Academy (EPA), was not a chance.

There was a plan to turn Riia Hill into Lenin Square already at the late 1940s. In the middle of the triangular site resided a seated Lenin’s statue made of concrete by sculptor S. Merkurov (from Moscow) till 1952. When the concrete statue started to crumble, it was replaced by bronze one, made by Estonian sculptors A. Vomm, F. Sannamees ja G. Pommer and architects M. Port ja L. Haljak. This was the first Estonian Lenin monument created by Estonian artists. The new bronze monument was unveiled on the 28th anniversary of Lenin’s death on 21st of January 1952. The bronze Lenin stood on a three-stepped terrace made of granite blocks, which in turn supported the red granite plinth. The total height of the monument was 7.8 metres⁴.

Plans to design Riia Hill into Lening Square at late 1940s

Unvieling of seated concrete Lenin statue at November 1949 at Riia 12 (front of Academy of Science)

The crumbling concrete statue was replaced by bronze one (authors G. Pommer, A. Vomm, F. Sannamees, M. Port)

The site had a central focus towards the statue with park benches placed around it. As the square is on the descent the whole area of the monument was slightly lowered into the square with two sets of steps leading to it from the Academy of Science building.

As early as 1972, the monument was listed as national heritage object. After the statue and the pedestal was dismantled at 1990, Tartu’s local government tried many years to abolish the heritage rights and there were plans to sell the sculpture at auction but these failed. At November 2005 it was transported to Estonian History Museum in Tallinn and currently is at Maarjamäe Orlov’s castle’s back yard.

The statue was in place till 1952

The statue was a central focus in the middle of Riia Hill Sq, on the background there is Estonian Agricultural Academy (EPA) building

6

7

TRAVELS OF THE MONUMENT Tartu is a unique case of removing the Lenin as it was the first town in Estonia where his statue was dismantled, even before Estonia regained its independence. The anti-regime operation was organised in secret and the statue was taken down on early hours of 23nd of August, 1990. The organisers were five members of Defence League’s Tamme company: Harri Henn, Villu Kaasik, Priit Rajassaar, Hando Kruuv and Rein Ilvär ⁵. The date chosen was not random as it was the 51st anniversary of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

What also followed as a straight aftermath of the dismantling is rather remarkable as well. The statue was taken on a back of a truck to Tartu KEK’s (collective construction kolkhoz) grounds and placed near the front gate but when the director of the KEK came to work, he ordered the statue to be removed immediately. As part of the antiregime movement the organisers of the dismantling took the statute to Tartu’s main square – Raekoja plats and placed a placard with Russian inscription “Socialism equals Fascism” around his neck. After that surprising episode for media, tourists and locals alike, the statue was moved swiftly to Tartu’s various warehouses and the last location for it was on the territory of a waste company (108 Tähe Street), where it stayed till 2005.

This impromptu removal of the monument caused turmoil in the city and the town council came together on the same day for an extraordinary session to discuss the situation. The council concluded that although the removal was illegal, it is not right to put the monument back in its original location, and so they decided to put together a committee to discuss questions concerning memorials in the future ⁶.

Jaama Str, Aug 23 1990

CENTRE 1 Riia Rd 12, 1952 – Aug 23 1990

Hando Kruuv trying to chisel off the letters from the postament

2 Tartu KEK, Riia 132, Aug 23 1990

5 Tähe St 108, 1990s – June 2005

Tallinn, Estonian History Museum yard from November 2005

After the dismantling of the statue it was first taken to Tartu KEK and then as part of anti-regime demonstration to Raekoja Sq

The statue was wearing a placard “Socialism is same as Fascisim”

8

4

3

Raekoja Square, Aug 23 1990

Социалисм равен фачисму

9

The same statue now in Estonian History Museum (in a planned monument park)

The junkyard stop, at Tähe St 108, stayed there till June 2005

10

Margit Keller, PhD, Senior Researcher, University of Tartu (resident of Tartu)

Hando Kruuv ⁷, Memonto Mori member, took part of dismantling of Lenin

To me the square at Riia hill is an empty space. It is not integrated into overall urban environment. People do not go there nor spend time there. It’s wedged between big roads and is noisy. It seems to be official site, ceremonial, for officers; ordinary inhabitants do not feel inclined to use this site.

The whole operation at Riia Hill didn’t take long, about 10 minutes and as it was 5 o’clock in the morning there was nobody to stop us. As we were about to leave, my car was blocked by militia vehicle but they didn’t come out and finally left. We agreed that we take the statue after the dismantling to Tartu KEK (collective construction kolkhoz) yard. When the director of KEK arrived, he ordered the statue to be removed. As I left for work, Harri Henn activated the formerly discussed scenario and took the statue to Raekoja Square. There was a criminal investigation but in the end nobody got charged.

11

RE-DESIGN OF THE SITE

The Square at Riia Rd 12 at present day – with seating and fountain on central axis

12

d

Riia

Baltic Defence College

Baltic Defence College Fig. A

R Võru

Rd

R Võru

d

Riia R

d

to the centre

On a new design the lengthened axis from downtown towards the main building is furthermore enhanced by two snaking seats and by elongated oblong shaped fountain cavity which draws the attention to the building instead of a square. Around the fountain there are steps that direct the movement towards the roads (Fig. B). The flag-posts placed parallel to the classical porticos increase the focus towards the College building. The area has regained the ceremonial sense as it was originally designed at 1939. Either because of this or because it is sliced on both sides by heavy traffic, it is hardly used by citizens of Tartu. Also, it has rather unemotional, anonymous feel to it and whether this is deliberate after years on focusing to Lenin or not, it is hard to say.

to the centre

After the Lenin statue was taken down from Riia Hill the red granite pedestal was removed about a week later on 29th of August 1990. The place was no longer a monument site. Originally it had all been about central focus and creating vistas to the monument. Even when there were seats added on the sides towards Riia and Võru Rd, the whole layout still directed all the movement to the central point (Fig. A). Coming from down-town and approaching the building at Riia 12, the people had no choice but at least make a half circle around the monument. At 1999 the building at the south side of the square was taken over by Baltic Defence College and the square in front of it was redesigned. The former central focus of the site was changed instead into prolonged axis focus towards the main building (Fig. B).

Fig. B

13

TALLINN

Chapel was demolishedat 1920s

SOVIET TRANSFORMATION Anything as important as the soviet memorial location was not chosen coincidentally, so the Stalin monument had to form a direct axis from the main entrance of the station building, so everybody straight off the train would be greeted by the father-Stalin. While the orthodox chapel was just “placed” by the road, the Stalin monument site was quite classically designed. Not only was it placed on exact opposition to the other side of the road from the station main entrance, it also had a widening angles towards the road and the station building in order to create better vistas. On the park side the site was rimmed with hedges creating a backdrop, further emphasizing the opening view to the station while the statue had its back turned towards the medieval Old Town and Toompea.

HISTORY OF THE SITE The monument site at Toompuiestee in Tallinn has a strong link to Balti Railway Station. The site itself situates directly on the opposite side of the road from Balti Railway Station main building which was built at 1870 as a neo-historic symmetrical two-story edifice. During early 1960-s it was completely reconstructed in a modernistic manner.

The Stalin (made by Russian sculptor, academician Nikolai Tomsky) monument was unveiled opposite the Balti Railway Station in Tallinn on July 20th 1950 although the statue was first intended for the current Viru Square (called Stalin Square after the war).

First memorial on the site used to be Russian orthodox chapel (also known as Alexander Nevsky chapel) which was built at 1888 as a commemoration for Russian tsar Alexander’s escape from train accident. It was demolished during early 1920-s.

As hundred years ago Toompuiestee road was not as wide, the location of the chapel was much nearer to the station building than the later monument site and by 1950 when Stalin’s monument was introduced to the site, it was taken further across the road, nearer to Old Town.

Alexander Nevsky chapel, built 1888, on a background Balti railway Station

14

The monument of Stalin opposite of Balti Railway Station

The monument had a short life however as most likely it was removed not long after the death of Stalin (probably at 1954). Some sources also claim that it was removed later (beginning of the 1960s⁶.

After Stalin’s death a power struggle ensued among the political elite. To guarantee support from the communists, Stalin’s actions were publicly condemned afterwards (though rather modestly) and monuments to Stalin were pulled down, cities and institutions named after him were renamed and so on.

The statue at early 1950s

15

TRAVELS OF THE MONUMENT The exact location of the Stalin’s bronze statue’s whereabouts after the removal remained a secret from the public for many decades and its location on yard of Tallinn’s Road and Maintenance Administration on Veerenni Street, where it lay forgotten on its side surrounded by bitumen was only “discovered on a hint” at early 1990s.

Before the monument was given to the Estonian History Museum when it organized the exhibition “Stalinism and Estonia”, there were plans to sell it as scrap metal.

The monument site was a place for organised celebration meetings

Estonian History Museum 3

1 Toompuiestee CENTRE

2 Veerenni St till 1990s Stalin statue was first moved to Veereeni St where it stayed for decades before it was moved to Maarjamäe

Mart Kalm, historian of Architecture Monument is the memory’s construction, the values of the monuments have also been constructed as in themselves they do not hold much value. The monuments’ objective is to take over the space. About Estonian History Museum’s monument park- it would be good that if it’s not overdesigned, the somewhat abandoned state of the park suits the [soviet] monuments. There is also practical reason why the specific areas where the monuments once stood are redesigned into raised flowerbeds as it would have been to costly to dig out the granite plinths that where underneath the monuments.

16

Kaja Tampere, Professor of Communication, Tallinn University I have always thought that monuments are elements of visual design and parks are beautiful environments to exhibit those designs. Whatever monument there has been [opposite Balti Railway Station] I have viewed them as visual objects. But as there is art for art’s sake there is also art that carries ideological meanings. Furthermore all material objects have emotional values. The old [soviet] monuments have other emotional values than those that are appreciated currently in our society. From historic point of view these monuments should be seen without their emotional value and as a democratic society we should embrace all the values and preserve these monuments

The monument for 1st December coup 1924, erected at 1974, partially demolished early 1990s

Surprisingly the Stalin’s monument was not immediately replaced by some other soviet one (as in most towns the Stalin statues were replaced by Lenin ones) and the site remained “empty” till 1974. The monument that “took over” the site was erected for the memory of the 1st December 1924 communist coup and was made by sculptor Matti Varik and architect Allan Murdmaa. The site was chosen for this monument because the Balti Railway Station was one of the places the communist shock troops had managed to conquer and hold for a while during the attempted coup on 1st of December.

There was a general publicly, albeit secretly passed around joke about the monument that this is the only monument to a revolution in the world that depicts everyone that participated in it at the same time. The monument contained of enormous bronze figures between three oblique slabs. It was over 8 meters high and the figures were 4.5 meters high. The bronze figures of the monument were removed on the decision of the Tallinn City Government in February 1993, the stone foundation was removed in 1994. The statues are now in three parts in the Estonian History Museum back yard at Maarjamäe ⁸.

When the architect Allan Murdmaa (who had created Estonia’s most gripping modern memorials – Maarjamäe and Tehumardi) was asked how he feels when the Balti Railways Station monument was demolished, he expressed his views as such: “….I liked the form of it. I feel sorry [about the demolition] as a monument is a monument.

In Florence there is on one side of the square Michelangelo’s David and on the other side there is Roman’s emperor’s equestrian monument, all together in piece. One does not bother the other.

The bronze parts of the memorial have been dismantled, April 1994

The pieces of the bronze statues are now at Estonian History Museum

17

RE-DESIGN OF THE SITE The place where these monuments once stood does not resemble the memorial site any longer as it is re-designed in a way that as if the area has been incorporated into a park. On a Fig. A we can see the planning of classical opening vista formed on central axis. The Stalin’s statue had to be seen straight from the main entrance of the original Balti Railway building. The same principal was used for the 1st December 1924 communist coup memorial. The exact site of the latter monument was slightly raised in order to create a more powerful effect of the ensemble.

Overall there has not been a massive or deliberate re-structuring of the memorial site after the last monument was dismantled. It could be explained by a very practical reason as most likely the

tat yS

extensive concrete foundation (as required for monuments weighing many tons) is still there in the ground. The area was just slightly levelled and covered with some loose gravel and rocks as well as randomly planted shrubs and plants (Fig. B).

The site therefore is integrated into park as if this patch of greenery had been the original idea from the start. The former monument location seems now rather mundane and unnoticeable even. Of course the fact that right next to it there is a bus stop and car parking lot does de-glorify the place even further. Furthermore people do not cross the road straight from that site anymore to the station but use a tunnel or a pedestrian crossing further away.

The site is now integrated into Toompuiestee park

ion

ion

wa ail R i

lt Ba

lti Ba tee ies u p om

To

Fig. A

18

tat yS a w

il Ra

st Bus

op

tee ies u p

m

o To

Fig. B

19

NARVA

SOVIET TRANSFORMATION The Lenin statue in Narva was one of the first ones that was made by Estonian sculptor. The artist Olev Männi and the architect Ilmar Bork were the authors of this monument. The bronze statue was erected at 1957 and with the granite pedestal towered 8,5 m high. The area of the monument was on the north side of the square with wide steps leading up to it. The robust granite parapet in front of the statue where the communist party-bosses greeted parading crowds were added at 1980s.

TRAVELS OF THE MONUMENT Narva was the last town in Estonia were the Lenin statue was taken down at 21st December 1993 (more than three years later than in Tartu). The decision was made by Narva’s City council. The dismantling was not easy, in addition to severe weather conditions there were some technical difficulties with a crane and also there was small crowd that gathered around the monument and cursed the workers¹¹. Narva is also a unique case as it is the only place where the statue was not taken very far. After it was dismantled it was taken just nearby -to Hermann castle’s courtyard. It is currently the only official exponent of Lenin statue that is openly on display in Estonia.

Sculptor O. Männi’s finishing touches at 1956

HISTORY OF THE SITE Narva that emerged from the Soviet period is almost completely unrecognisable from the one that existed prior to WW II. Previously characterised as the ‘baroque jewel’ of Northern Europe, the city was quite literally reduced to rubble in 1944 and the ruins were for the most part demolished and the city entirely re-modelled on the Soviet plan¹⁰. On Peetri Sq there were most likely on the site where the Lenin monument was located several houses before the war. The nearby 20

situated Hermann fortress and other bastion buildings from Swedish reign did survive the bombing. But an empty and slightly on ascent space opening to Peetri square proved a perfect location for a soviet monument.

Lenin monument at 1957, soon after opening

The pupils standing guard at 1980s

21

Meeting against economic border sanctions at 1990 - on top of the steps the granite parapet which was added 1980s

The bronze statue was moved to nearby courtyard of Hermann fortress Peetri Square, 21 Dec, 1993

CENTRE

1

2

Hermann fortress, 21 Dec, 1993

Andres Toode, director of Narva College: At the place itself [where the statute of Lenin stood] is now food kiosk which is operating with occasional success. The only change there is the overgrown hedges around the pedestal that have been taken down as behind these the trade of illegal cigarettes was taken place. The 8 masts that stand next to this ridge have sometimes Estonian flag in them. The original meaning or symbolism of the place is vanished. There are future plans to turn the space into bus-terminal, so it will have a functional purpose

object – it has more or less commercial purpose and there are no plans to get rid of it as it is no longer a monument but a exhibit in a museum. Once or twice a year there will be flowers delivered to it. It does not have art-value but historic value.

The Lenin statute [that is moved quite nearby into the courtyard of Hermann fortress] serves as tourism 22

23

RE-DESIGN OF THE SITE The location of the monument itself has not changed much. The central pedestal is gone (Fig. B) but the steps and raised platform where the monument once stood remains the same. There used to be hedges lining the monument site but as they got overgrown the local municipality has removed them. There is small cafĂŠ-kiosk operating

on the platform and few tables overlooking Peetri Square which mostly serves as a parking lot. The trees that were planted when the monument was designed and left then the background of the monument quite barren (Fig. A) have been now overgrown, thus making the platform embraced by greenery, most suitable for a cosy summer drinks

The steps and the plinth remain after the removal of the Statue and Peetri Sq is used mainly as a parking lot

Tall in

na R

Tall in

na R

d

d

d

a Rd

na R

n Talli

nn Talli

car p

Fig. A

24

g arkin

Fig. B

25

TALLINN The most prominent Lenin’s statue in Tallinn was of course in front of the Estonian Communist Party’s building at Lenin’s Avenue (now Rävala Avenue). The building now houses Foreign Ministry and the square is called Islandi väljak (as Island being the first country who acknowledged Estonia’s newly regained independence).

The Lenin’s statue was erected on 1950 for the 80th birth anniversary marking of the soviet leader.

The site before the monument was built was empty (being bombed on World War Two) but still at close proximity to the centre of town and formed a straight axis with Estonia theatre. The authors were Nikolai Tomsky with architect Alar Kotli. The eleven-story Estonian Communist Party’s building was constructed later at 1960s.

More than four decades later and exactly one year later than Tartu one, the bronze statue was dismantled, namely on 23rd of August 1991. The statue was stored at some warehouse where metal thieves cut off his head and right hand. Toivo Tammik asserts that the green cross junction cries out for some sort of monument as it enlivens the rather monotone symmetry of the Foreign Ministry’s building¹³. Furthermore, when Lenin was still in the middle of the square it was not meant to be accessible by just random wanderers and now as the security of Ministry has cut off the pedestrian flow, the situation has not changed.

The monument soon after the opening at 1951

Dismantling of the monument on 23rd of Augst 1993

The site is was off limits but for ceremonial saluting

With the abovementioned statue there is one rather interesting happening involved but I will talk about it more closely with Pärnu case.

Placing the flowers for EKP 50th anniversary, 1971

The granite pedestal was taken down later

26

27

RAKVERE 1

Näituse Str, former soviet army grounds

CENTRE

The statue was not in the centre of town but at the perimeter, on closed military grounds

Rakvere is in that sense quite a unique case that most people (even residence of Rakvere) were unaware that the town even had its own Lenin monument. The answer was in its location. The reinforced concrete statue was not in the centre of town but in enclosed territory of soviet army boarder guards on Näituse St – on “the other side” of the railway lines.

I can only speculate that perhaps it was at one point attended into more prominent location at the town centre but this never happened. Is it something to do with the fact that Rakvere’s main square functioned (and still does to some extent) 28

during soviet times as a marketplace where active trade of selling potatoes and carrots took place thus making it not suitable surroundings to Lenin or were there some other, more prominent reasons, I cannot tell.

The cast-plaster statue as it was 1993 and still in its current location but mostly destroyed (at 1994)

Also I believe it is the only Lenin monument that has not removed from its original location as such as it is still there, albeit in pieces. Of course the entire former soviet army grounds are abandoned and the city has no direct need to deal with the outskirts of no-man’s land.

29

PÄRNU On Pärnu case I will not analyse the site of monuments or the travels of various statues but just give a short overview of the city’s soviet monument situation. Apparently Pärnu used to have its own Stalin (I have no data that confirms that this statue was also located in Rüütli Sq as the two latter Lenin monuments), that was dismantled at late 1950s and as it was solid cast bronze statue, which metal after the dismantling was used mostly in Loksa Shipping yard¹⁴. Journalist U. Kaldmaa claims that the red marble* plinth and the concrete base of Stalin monument were very hard to dismantle and took workers a whole night of work with pneumatic drills.

After the removal of Stalin, the cast plaster Lenin statue was placed on Rüütli Sq in front of a Bank of Estonia building (the building did not function as that during soviet occupation).

At early 1980s the bronze Lenin bust was replacing the cast plaster monument. The author of the bust was sculptor Matti Varik and a replica of this monument was formerly built in Kotka in 1979.

The bust stayed on Rüütli Sq till September 1990, so it was only a month later that than the Tartu Lenin was dismantled. The decision was made by City council, which also claimed that the statute has an art value and it cannot be destroyed but has to be preserved till further exhibition possibilities are clarified¹⁵. Currently the statue should be still in Pärnu in an undisclosed warehouse.

The site itself is re-designed quite similarly as in Tartu with central fountain and standing clock. As it is now again a working bank building, citizens of Pärnu seem to be using the site rather for running their day-to-day errands But Pärnu had a visiting Lenin as well. Mark Soosaar, a curator of Pärnu’s modern museum made an art installation for millennium. The headless Lenin statue made by Tomsky that was once in Tallinn in front of Communist Party building was put on a pedestal in front of the museum, with flashing orange lights in place of its missing head and hand and a sign reading “Goodbye 20th Century.” There is an article in Baltic Times¹⁶ about the whole mayhem. The statue was ordered to be removed by 30

Visiting Lenin statue from Tallinn as part of the art installation Cast plaster statue in Rüütli Sq in front of former Bank of Estonia building

1

Rüütli Sq

CENTRE

Bronze statue – bust of Lenin (M. Varik), placed at 1983, taken away at 1990

Deputy Mayor Eino-Juri Laarmann who claimed that was improper to criticize him [Lenin] or ridicule his image after death. Soosaar then mounted the statue into back of truck as it would be on the move and added plastic arm and a head. * most likely it was red granite not marble

Rüütli Sq at present day, re-designed with central fountain

31

CONCLUSION Every major city in the world has its monuments and the idea of having a memorial to somebody’s honour is as old as the idea of urbanity itself. Postsoviet countries have had the layers of monuments perhaps placed more thickly on top of each other than in somewhere else. I do not see it necessarily as a negative thing. I will put aside a notion of destruction and vanishing and try to focus rather on multi-cultural aspects.

Overall there were more than forty Stalin’s or Lenin’s monuments erected in Estonia over period of nearly fifty years. Sergei Kruk¹⁷ from Riga Stradins University has compiled quite illuminating table about Stalin and Lenin statues in the Baltics. This material is one basis for my conclusive overview. Most of the soviet monuments were in Estonia’s biggest towns but quite many were in the territory of major factories as well, especially in the north-east region of Estonia (Narva and Kohtla-Järve).

Obviously after the war when hard metals were a shortage, the statues were made mostly of reinforced concrete or plaster cast and later painted. After the mid-1950-s majority of them were one-by-one replaced by the cast bronze ones. Also, the earlier monuments were designed by sculptors from Moscow but from mid-fifties onwards the authors were typically prominent Estonian sculptors and architects. They have already received their fair share of criticism but I’m not going to dwell on a issue of conforming into social realism. But nevertheless (as presented in the introduction) arises a question about the art value of these monuments.

As in some cases (like in Pärnu M. Varik’s Lenin’s bust) the statues have been collected and put into safekeeping but at the same time nobody (politics, general public, art historians) seems to be interested to really keep the discussion alive or reach some sort of consensus what would be the way forward – either keep these statues in the dark or is there a way to exhibit them?

The museum claims to collect these monuments as part of the memories of an era and to place these in a new context by setting up an outdoor exhibition in the park of Maarjamäe. But of course for some of these monument it has been too late. According to Mariann Raisma¹⁸, the Director of Development of Estonian History Museum, the fate was sealed for lot of soviet monuments that got destroyed or went missing by excluding them from the Heritage Protection register. Especially those monuments that were located on the territories of former factories got demolished or stolen. The museums admits that there is of course an additional emotional baggage that comes with these monuments as anything associated with Soviet ideology is painful and thus making dissenting opinions about preserving them.

The other angle that I tried to make visible in this study is that these monuments played a big role of shaping the urban environment that they were placed into. The whole surroundings of the urban land-scape were designed according to monuments as in Tartu or at Balti Railway Station but I think even more significant were the cases where the urban surroundings were designed in accordance with the previously placed monuments like the Lenin in Rävala Avenue. The junction as well as the backdrop building would look different now where it now for Tomsky’s Lenin. Alone for that major role that a monuments can play by shaping our towns we should not dismiss them or the sites that easily as even while being unaware of their former presence we can still feel their influences.

Some steps have been made though as nearly ten years ago there was an initiative from the state with Estonia’s History Museum as a vehicle to start accumulating these statues into collection and some of them have made it to the museum’s back yard.

32

33

REFERENCES 1 Nora, P. Realms of Memory. Colubia University Press, 1996 2 Minaudier, J.P. Mémoires incompatibles? http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-07-03-minaudier-fr.html 3 Tamm, Marek. Monumentaalne ajalugu. Loomingu raamatukogu, Tallinn: 2012 4 http://www.ajaloomuuseum.ee/en/estonian-history-museum/park-of-monuments 5 Pau, M. Tartu Postimees. 24.08.2010 6 http://www.ajaloomuuseum.ee/en/estonian-history-museum/park-of-monuments 7 Kruuv H. Delfi 21.09. 2011 8 http://www.ajaloomuuseum.ee/en/estonian-history-museum/park-of-monuments 9 Tammik, T. interview with Allan Murdmaa. Sirp, 17.03.2006 10 Burch, S., Smith, D. Empty Spaces and the Value of Symbols: Estonia’s ‘War of Monuments’ from Another Angle. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 6 (2007) 11 Põhjarannik: 07.07.2003 12 Stepanov, S. Põhjarannik, 04.07.2003 13 Tammik, T. Sirp. Väljaku sünd ja ümbersünd. 28.11.2013 14 Kaldmaa, U. Postimees, 20.09.1996 15 ETA: 09. 11 1997 16 Roman, S. The heady battle over Parnu’s headless Lenin. The Baltic Times, 15.04.2004 17 Kruk, S. Lenin Eestis: skulptuurid, õigus ja raha. Vikerkaar, Tallinn: 4-5/2013 18 Postimees: 24.07.2008 Photos: National Photo Archive Tallinn City Archive Jeremie Jung Jerry Waters

34

Estonian Academy of Arts Urban Studies Master Programme Tutor Maros Krivy

2013

36

UNESCO and Tallinn Old Town: acting at a distance Maria Derlõš L GE LD HERITA

4

W OR

IST

.0

. 12 TALL INN 1997

T RLD

R WO

HERITAGE LIS

LD H ERITAGE LIST

TA L 4 LIN N 1997. 12. 0

WO

WORLD HERI

TAG WORLD HERI

TAL

. 04

12

7.

9 9 1 TALLINN

7.

TALLINN 199

12

. 04

EL IST

TAG

EL IST

LIN N

1997. 12. 04

   

  

          



    

 

     

      



   

   

 

 

      

       



            

  

     



     



                    

  

   



              

            

   

    

    



   

    



        

      

    



 

          

     



          



      

  

         





   

    

     



 

    



       

     





      



   



   



      





      

      

       

  

    

 

     

  

 



 

  

    

   

 

  

       



     



          

   

 

     

           

   

    

    



  

 

        

  

 

    



  

    

         

       



                      

 

  

  

     

   

    

        

   

     

    

     

  

 

 

        

       

       

  

     



 



   

   





   

    





       





   



      

   



     

        





     

   

     

  

 

                        

            

     

     



      

 

            

 

   

     

    

             

               

         

 

 

 

 

 

 







 





































  

 



   

  































  







  

  





 





















































































































 

 











 

 





































       

  

























 







       

 



     

 

  





 

 

  



     

               

 

              

      

          

     

       

                 

         

     

                 

           

   

      

 



  

  







  

 

      

   

Estonian Academy of Arts Urban Studies Master Programme Tutor Maros Krivy 2013

The imaginary spaces of Tallinn’s housing estates: films and milieux

Pille Koppel

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. FILMS

Houses Windows Doors Faces

In the environment Public transport Cars Skies Nights Escapes TVs Other [CODE]

2. MILIEUX

p35-39

Essay and timeline p40-41 Map of milieu valuable areas p42-43 Map of panel houses

The imaginary spaces of Tallinn’s housing estates: films and milieux INTRODUCTION: The present work focuses on representation of Tallinn’s panel housing estates. Mustamäe, Lasnamäe and Väike-Õismäe representations are firstly through their forty years of cinematic representations; secondly they are studied by keeping in mind the atmosphere that the cinematic representation presented, the panel housing estates are placed in the context of milieu discourse in Tallinn.

More than one third of residents of Tallinn are living in a panel house. Panel housing districts are the largest environments with coherent atmosphere in Tallinn therefore an important part of the city.

This paper aims to expand the topic of panel

housing and also the milieu discourse by approaching the imaginary side of panel housing areas and to prove the need to expand the understanding of the term “milieu”.

The first part of the work is a visual study of differences and similarities in cinematic depiction of Mustamäe, Lasnamäe and Väike-Õismäe. There are sequences of still images that suggest how the environment of panel housing, people and their activities situated in this specific environment are used and represented in the movies.

The second part of the work is focusing on the topic of milieu discourse in Tallinn. It is mainly textual and consists of an essay, maps of milieux and timeline.

Photo by Jérémie Jung, 2013

1.FILMS The present chapter is focusing on the representation of Mustamäe, Lasnamäe and Väike-Õismäe in twelve movies made between years 1968-2013. It looks at the persistent categories of objects that have appeared again and again in the cinematic representations. Storylines and context of the movies are eliminated in the work; what remains are pure images.

The screenshots of the movies and videos were taken from the scenes filmed in a panel housing area or in a panel house. Those imaginary spaces of Tallinn’s housing estates are stripped of their narrative movement.

The panel housing environment is used to embody certain atmosphere in movies. No matter if the movies

have dressed the milieu in sad greyness or happy colour, there are in every movie independently represented firstly the multiplicity of same kind of elements like windows or houses; secondly in every movie anonymity of the environment is represented, it means that all the places in the movies are somewhere in the panel housing districts but the certain place is almost impossible to recognise.

Furthermore by analysing the screenshots it came out that the images could be categorised in to certain groups. The images categories are arranged into regular grid according to the categories.

The following categories were used (in the order they are presented on the following pages): Houses – endless repeats of same volume and same colour blocks. Nature and infrastructure is set up to contrast the housing. Nature coule be perceived similarly with the housing (repeats of fragments and being coherent).

Windows – presents repetitiveness. Windows are like eyes. People on windows are checking out what is going on outside. On the other hand from outside it is difficult to see inside. There could be seen chnages in time: uniformed original windows - some balcony glazing - “properly“ renovated facade with plastic windows.

Doors –These are borders and in the same time connections between private and public and between mine and yours. Doors are like meeting points for unarranged meetings. Also comes out the lack of space, like there is no space to take a whole picture in the room but the camera has to be another side of a door.

Faces – Some of the characters and their expressions. There could be found some faces staring into emptiness and some eyes begging understanding, but also excitement about new apartment in a panel house.

In the environment – People are appearing very small between the panel houses. Camera is stopping to watch kids playing in groups or following the adults wondering around alone or gathering to a big anonymous group.

Public transport – In this endless wideness between the houses, people are gathering in the bus stops and then compressed to a small space. Public transport represents also the idea of modern lifestyle.

Cars – Parking cars between houses are part of the atmosphere. There are cars parking in order in the older movies and the chaos is taken place in the newer movies since there are more people owning a car.

Skies – Seagulls flying freely in the endless wideness over the houses. Big clouds in free shapes are making the housing look compressed. There are some rainbows and many electrical wires to be found in the images.

Nights - Street lamps, car lights and windows are glittering the same way. Lonely people in the atmosphere.

Escapes – Zoo, beach, parks, summerhouse, historical district… everything old or from nature is contrasting.

TVs - Watching Tv is an important event, there are people gathering around TV. Posing with TV. They are mostly watching Finnish television. There are still newspapers and radios remained.

Other - There are some more that catched my eye: kitchen tables, corridors and pets, shopping, interiers and stairs. * The code to the grids are of images is on the last page of the present chapter.

1.

2.

VIINIPOSTMARK (1968)

By Veljo Käsper. (Eesti Telefilm), 26.13min Movie. Comedy about a citizen of the Soviet Union.

NEW SONGS OF JAAK JOALA (1984)

By Toivo Kõster, 26.13min, Music videos.

3. LASNAMÄE(1984)

By Mark Soosaar (Tallinn Film), 10.02min,

Advertisement video.

5.

ÕNNELIND FLAMINGO (1986)

6.

MA POLE TURIST, MA ELAN SIIN (1989)

7.

PÄTU 1-10 (1990)

By Tõnis Kask, 88min, Movie looking a boy growing up in a panel housing block.

By Astrid Reinla, Tõnu Oja, 9x25min, A kids show about family moving to their new apartment.

PEAARHITEKTID (1999)

9.

SÜGISBALL (2007)

10.

DISKO JA TUUMASÕDA (2009)

By Andres Sööt, Ike Volkov, 52min, Documentary about city planning during the Soviet time.

By Veiko Õunpuu, 1.59min, Movie - looks 6 peoples’ fates in pre-fabricated housing units.

By Jaak Kilmi and Kiur Aar, 1.18min, Story about information war during the soviet time in Estonia.

11.

TUVID (2012)

12.

RAHVARINNE: LASNAMÄE BUSSIS (2013)

8 4 4 5 9

9 12 9 9 3

9 7 11 10 10 9 8 9 1 5 PEOPLE

6 5 3 7 9

10 1 10 7 11

5 4 9 6 4 4 10 5 10 9 CARS

10 9 6 9 9

3 9 3 3 4

3 3 11 5 11 3 3 9 5 4 SKIES

3 3 3 9 4

9 9 10 9 9

10 9 5 8 10 9 7 5 9 5 NIGHTS

3 5 6 5 5

8 6 7 6 9

10 3 5 7 5 7 6 11 6 2 ESCAPES

3 3 1 1 6

3 11 10 10 6

10 10 10 10 3

3 10 10 10 10

8 10 10 7 10

6 10 11 4 3

3 4 5 5 3 7 9 4 7 5 OTHER

3 11 1 9 6

By Peeter Urbla, 2.06min Movie about a local man struggles to get a flat.

8.

1 9 10 10 5 4 4 6 9 11 THE HOUSES

9 10 9 7 1

10 5 5 7 8 3 6 11 10 9 WINDOWS

9 4 9 8 2

5 5 6 9 8

10 6 5 6 2 5 6 6 5 7 DOORS

Interview with the architect of the district Mall Meelak.

4.

CIRCLE TOWN VÄIKE-ÕISMÄE (1985)

By Mati Põldre, 8.53min,

7 6 2 9 7

4 10 3 11 7

By Kadriann Kibus, 1.59 min, Documentary about a homeless woman and an unemployed man.

By REPORTER, 5.09 min Short video to memory of the Popular Front of Estonia.

2 5 4 1 8 7 10 11 6 4 4 3 4 5 9 1 5 10 6 9 IN THE ENVIRONMENT

TV

10 4 12 6 11 5 9 7 1 12 5 5 5 12 4 3 7 1 5 4 PUBLICTRANSPORT

2.MILIEUX At the moment there are 14 areas considered as milieu valuable areas in Tallinn. The process of valuation of milieux is constantly going on.

Whisch areas are preceived as milieu valuable areas and not changes through the history. For example Kalamaja was objectively stigmatized recently but now belongs to the group of valued milieu areas. Among proposals of new milieu valuable areas there are also existing milieu valuable areas that are expanding (mainly in the center of the city) and some that are under discussion to be reduced (Nõmme). The following essay will discuss the milieu discourse in Tallinn.

Firstly I will discuss general aspects and actors involved. Secondly, by considering the changeability of the discourse, the essay speculates about placing the panel housing districts in the context of areas considered as milieu valuable at present day.

Milieux The word milieu origins from mid 19th century French, it comes from mi ‘mid’ lieu ‘place’. According to the Oxford online Dictionary milieu is a person’s social environment and according to the Cambridge online dictionary it is the people, physical, and social conditions and events that provide the environment in which someone acts or lives.

In Estonian language milieu means an environment, surroundings, but also an atmosphere. Milieu is material as well as experienced environment. Since the environment is not just an material phenomenon, but also includes people in a milieu, it is related with human experience.(Hansar 2004) The term „milieu valuable area“ was adopted in 2002 with the new Planning Law of Estonia. The term was taken into use to protect areas, where individual buildings are not considered very valuable in cultural aspect, but by having a large number of buildings they are creating atmosphere in between of themselves that is considered valuable. Therefore a single building can’t form a milieu but groups of buildings with streets system and also the greenery can form a milieu that is considered valuable. The areas considered as milieu valuable areas are considered part of the cultural heritage of Estonia.

Adoption of the term „milieu valuable area“ has

changed the way we preceive urban spaces and the term “milieu area” in the context of Tallinn. The Estonian lexicon (Võõrsõnade leksikon 2000) describes it widely. Milieu is defined there as an environment; neighbourhood; a set of external living conditions wherein is located a member of society or wherein lives an organism. Therefore every part of a city is a milieu, although “milieu area” is understood in everyday life as area labelled as a “milieu valuable area”.

The use of the term “mileu area” has lost part of its original meaning in the context of Estonian building regulation and urban planning. The term refers only to spatial and material environment, leaving the social aspects outside of its focus. The Masterplan of Tallinn defines term „milieu-valued area“ as a coherent housing environment with streets and green areas, which are qualitatively preservable and leaving out any kind of reference to the social aspects. In addition according to the webpage of the Information Center for Sustainable Renovation (http://www.miljooala.ee/) the social aspect of a milieu valuable area is perceived as source that keeps up the environment and takes care of it but not as one of a part of milieu.

Kadri Semm has claimed that: „while in Estonian urban planning practice the meaning of milieu was understood and interpreted as a coherent spatial and material urban environment, in the German context it was viewed as a specific lifestyle.“ (Semm 2012) Therefore people are not there just to consume the milieu but they are a part of it with their actions and lifestyle.

In the interview with Anneli Jüristo from Tallinn Culture and Heritage Department [4] it was confirmed that although the officials can see the people in the environment as part of a milieu, than the protection of a milieu valuable area doesn’t cover this part of a milieu.

It was discussed in the interview that the topic is controversial and with the present resources it would not be manageable. There are groups of people who improve and activate an environment (association Uus Maailm) there are also the people who are considered threatening for the milieu (homeless people at Kopli liinid) or there are also conflicts among different groups of people (the naighbour complains in Uus Maailm). Therefore conflicts between people in the environment are left to solve by them selves that usually means stronger’ rights and that investors and new comers are pushing people out from the area.

35

TIMELINE:

1959 Planning project for Mustamäe

1962 Started the building of the first panel house in Mustamäe

1964 New urban planning for Mustamäe, number of residents was increased to 80 000

1966 Tallinn Old Town was taken under protection, so it is the first bigger area under protection

1968 Movie “Viinipostmark“ by Veljo Käsper. (Eesti Telefilm)

The comedy about a citizen of the Soviet Union.

1973 Building of Mustamäe was finished 1973 Started to build the settlement of Väike-Õismäe

1976 Lasnamäe was awarded with USSR’ “MN“ Prize

1977 Started to build Lasnamäe

1978 Building of Väike-Õismäe was finished

1984 Väike-Õismäe was awarded with USSR’ “AL“ Prize

1984 Music videos “New songd of Jaak Joala“ by Toivo Kõster

1985 Advertisement video “Ringlinn“ (Circle Town)

The video is showing beautiful and colorful scenes about Väike-Õismäe

1985 Video“Lasnamäe“ By Mark Soosaar (Tallinn Film)

Interview with the architect of the district Mall Meelak and scenes about Lasnamäe

1986 Movie “Õnnelind Flamingo“ by Tõnis Kask

The movie is about a boy growing up in a panel housing block.

1987 Definite proposal to establish heritage conservation area in Kadrioru was made

1988 Song “Mingem ülesmägedele“ with words: “Stop the Lasnamäe“ was written

by K. A. Hermann / M. Veske / A. Mattiisen / H. Käo)

1989 “Ma pole turist ma elan siin“ by Peeter Urbla

The movie about immgration, it looks how a local man struggles to get a flat.

36

Riin Alatalu argues in an article in Sirp that „milieu valuable areas has helped to shape regional identities particularly at the time when a large part of the population in historical settlements have changed.“ (Alatalu 2012) Therefore it can be said that the act of labelling an area as a milieu valuable area is itself one of a source that influences the present state of an area and the heritage board itself is shaping milieus by controlling changes in the areas that are announced as milieu valuable areas.

In the interview A. Jüristo [4] claimed also that some local residents are perceiving the label more and more positively due to its effect on real estate prices. During the last years the label “milieu valuable area” has got popular in use in the real estate sites. On the other hand, other local residents find the regulations unfear as the label “milieu valuable area” increases renovation expenses. I believeit is important to see milieu discourse in a wider context, including its social aspects and historic determination.

Most of the “milieu valuable areas” are from the end of 19’th century or beginning of 20’th century. There are some also in stalinistic style that are built in 1940-50s.

Furthermore the youngest is Pirita from 70s. (see also the map on page….) So the ages of districts are not predominant in this question, although have its role.

The milieu valuable areas are also not always coherent but in many cases including mixes and layers of different periods. The area of Uus Maailm could be brought out as an example of diversity. On another hand area of Kopli liinid is coherent by it’s look and construction time. There are also differences in the social class who inhabited the area, some of the milieu valuable areas were built for upper class (e.g Kadriorg), there are some areas where middle-class was living (e.g Tatari) and many areas built as cheap rental housing for factory labourers (e.g Kalamaja).

Therefore we can say that there are no exact rules for defining “milieu valuable areas”. How it happens that an area is selected to be a “milieu valuable area”? The milieu discourse in Tallinn is expert-based (Semm 2012) and this is referring to importance of experts opinion and how they perceive a certain atmosphere. A. Jüristo admitted also in the interview[4] that determining the milieu value of an area is up to the way experts perceive it.

Leaving the issues about milieu discourse just for the experts makes the milieu discourse vulnerable. For example there has been structural change in the Heritage Board in January 2013 and there are reduced number people who work with the milieu valuable areas and therefore the institution is not interested to add any milieu valuable areas to the list due to lack of human

resource to manage the areas. However, the milieu value of an area shouldn’t be influenced by the lack of officials in the department. Furthermore, according to the previous text, expert-based dicourse is problemtic because it ignores social questions and milieux become only the question of built forms.

Panel housing areas There are differences and constant change in how an area in the city and milieu discourse is perceived by local resident and experts. Therefore we can speculate that panel housing areas will be decleared as “milieu valuable areas” in the future. For example Old Town of Tallinn has been long perceived as without value. Eliel Saarinen didn’t value the Old Town and proposed it as a district for poor in his “Suur Tallinn” project 1913.

Later it got in the spotlight of Heritage Board and in the mid 60s Old Town got widely popular. (E. Näripea 2005) Same have happened with wooden suburbs of Tallinn.

The first attempts to protect wooden houses and settlements was already in the 1970s, but these proposals were pushed aside. In 1987 definite proposal to establish heritage conservation area in Kadrioru was made.

City Government rejected this and all other suggestions to protect wooden houses. Even Tallinn City Heritage Board discouraged the propsal of Kadriorg, Nõmme and other suburbian areas. (R. Alatalu, 2013) Only in 2001 first eight milieu valuable areas were established by the comprehensive plan of Tallinn.

Will the discussion around wooden suburbs of Tallinn be turned into discussion around the panel housing districts of Tallinn? In fact, question of milieu value of Väike-Õismäe has been raised already. The city council of Haabersti proposed to start process of launching Väike-Õismäe as a milieu valueable area in 2007. The chairman of the Management Board of Haabersti district at this time, Taavi Rõivas, said that it is to stop chaotic upgrading of apartment buildings. (Postimees 12.Dec.2006). Tallinn City administration rejected the proposal by postponing the issue to preparations of General Plan of the district to ensure needs and interests of as many as possible members of society because this question would influence more than 30 000 people.

The preparation of General Plan of Haabersti is still going on for the moment the topic seems to be lost in the process. The draft doesn’t show no signs of protecting Väike-Õismäe settlement as milieu. In the interview with authors of the General Plan of Haabersti[3]appeared that they once raised the question about Väike-Õismäe but the Heritage Board wasn‘t interested about this topic. So the topic was left out for longer 37

1990 Kids serial “Pätu“ By Astrid Reinla, Tõnu Oja, 9x25min,

A kids show about a family moving to their new apartment in Lasnamäe.

1999 Documentary “Peaarhitektid“ by Andres Sööt, Ike Volkov

Interviews about city planning during the Soviet time, it stigmatized panel housings

2001 First eight milieu valuable areas were established by the Comprehensive Plan of Tallinn.

2002 The term „milieu valuable area “ was adopted with the new Estonian Planning Law.

mid 2000s Boom of renovations 12.12.2006 Article in Postimees: “Väike-Õismäe needs protection under the rush of

upgrading the buildings” 08.02.2007 “This afternoon the City Council of Haabersti propsed to launch Väike-Õismäe as milieu

valuable area” says announcement on the web page of Reformierakond.

March.2007 Tallinn city administration rejected the proposal

2007 Movie “Sügisball“ by Veiko Õunpuu

The Movie looks fates of 6 peoples in Soviet pre-fabricated housing units.

2009 Movie “Disko ja Tuumasõda“ by Jaak Kilmi and Kiur Aar

Story about information war between east and west during the soviet time in Estonia.

2012 Exchibition “LASN”

The task for participating architects was to apply a concept of quarter on Lasnamäe

2012 Välkloeng (popular lectures’ show created by architects) held in Lasnamäe

2012 Documentary“Tuvid“ by Kadriann Kibus

The documentary is about a homeless woman and an unemployed man.

2013 Video“Lasnamäe buss“ by REPORTER

The short video for memory of the Popular Front of Estonia.

2013 TAB - Recycling Socialism

Discuss the issues about heritage of Soviet time

Part of the TAB is a vision competition about Väike-Õismäe

2012 Välkloeng (popular lectures’ show created by architects) held in Väike-Õismäe

2013 Tallinn Urban Walks in Lasnamäe

organized by Estonian Urban Lab 38

discussion. Despite, the areas that are marked as milieu valuable areas in Haabersti district was proposed by the authors of General Plan. It could be assumed that Heritage Board is the one to raise questions about milieu valuable area but the lack of human resource to deal with these questions results as topics not been discussed as all.

Let us compare the official development programs of Tallinn’s panel housing districts. In the Development plan of Mustamäe 2007-2014 (2007) there is no single word about milieux. In the Development plan of Lasnamäe 2007-2015 (2007) it is stated that the milieu and reputation of Lasnamäe should be improved.

In the Development plan of Haabersti 2011-2014 (2011) it is pointed out that Väike-Õismäe should be protected, preserved and developed of as a milieu area.

There comes out an interesting point that while in the movies the districts were mostly hard to distinguish and the atmosphere was perceived similarly the official development plans made a great distinction between the districts.

It is also generally known that residents of Tallinn make a great distinction between the districts. For example Lasnmäe is known as Russians settlement.

Väike-Õismäe and Mustamäe are rather known by their greenery. Furthermore, the importance of local inhabitants has come out in the interviews with the architects of city districts, when I asked to bring out some examples how the local inhabitants of panel housing districts are caring about their living environment. The architect of Lasnamäe district Leili Müür [1] brought out active participation of the event “Hoovid korda” , where people can have financial support from the local municipality to fix surrounding of their buildings. Also she told a story how there was once a façade of panel house coloured in “horrible pink” colour and lot of neighbours came to complain about it, so they cared enough to take this trouble. In an interview with the architect of Haabersti district Tiina Jaska [2] brought out the activeness of Homeowner Associations, which have renewed quite many buildings “properly”. Also means neighbours have come to complain to her if they see a balcony’s glazing that doesn’t fit with others and therefore is not legally formed. Homeowner Associations are quite eager to watch it as well. Hence local inhabitants value their environment and have influenced the changes in their settlements by Homeowner Associations, by using their individual voices and by participating in an event that improves their living environment.

Õismäe as a milieu valuable area that absurd that there is nothing they want to discuss about. However today people say Lasnamäe is a dull area because it is grey and homogeneous, and expert say it is no valuable from theperspective of “milieux“, the same adjectives will perhaps be used in 30 years to say that Lasnamäe is a “milieu valuable area”. The discourse on the value of panel housing district is gaining momentum. During the last years there have been many exhibitions and events dedicated to the heritage of soviet regime and dealed with the panel housing districts (Lasn in autumn 2012, Välkloeng in 15.Nov.2012, Tallinn Architecture Biennale 2013 etc). The question however is whether the value will be defined in social terms or it will be only the value of built forms as in other cases of “milieu valuable areas“.

Conclusion For conclusion can be said that discourse of milieu in the context of Estonian building regulation and Tallinn urban planning concentrates on spatial part of milieu valuable areas and leaving out other aspects (social, political). In what terms will be the milieu value of Lasnamäe, Väike-Õismäe and Mustamäe defined in the future? It is important to discuss who, how and for which objectives will claim panel housing district areas as milieu valuable areas in the near future. The discourse should be expanded by social aspects of a milieu.

References: - The Information Center for Suitainable Renovation. Mis on miljööväärtuslik eluasemepiirkond? http:// www.miljooala.ee [Accessed: 11.17.2013] - Vääri, E; Kleis, R; Silvet, J (2000) Võõrsõnade leksikon. Vol. 6. Valgus - HANSAR L. (2004), Miljööväärtused linnas, Tallinn, Keskkonna ministeerimum - SEMM K. (2012), Milieux in neighbourhood place making, Tallinna Ülikool - NÄRIPEA E. (2005) Tallinna vanalinna representatsioonid Eesti NSV filmikunstis 1960.-1970. aastail, Tallinn, Eesti Kunstiakadeemia pp4-5 - ALATALU R. (20.04.2012) Kümme aastat miljööalasid. Sirp [Online] Available from: http://www.sirp.ee [Accessed: 11.17.2013] - Alatalu R. (2013) Milieu Areas. Estonian Cultural Heritage – preservation and conservation VOL1, 2005-2012 INTERVIEWS: 1. Leili Müür, Architect of Lasnamäe district, 14.October.2013 2. Tiina Jaska, Architect of Haabersti district, 15.October.2013 3. Kärt Talimaa, Anu Pablo, Tiina Nigul, City Planning

In the interview Lasnamäe district architects couldn’t see Lasnamäe as a milieu valuable area due to it’s size and Haabersti district architect found idea of Väike –

Department, 29.October.2013 4. Anneli Jüristo, Tallinn Culture and Heritage Department, 5.December.2013

39

Kopli liinid

The area was built for Kopli shipyard workers in the beginning of 20’th century.

The area is coherent with same kind of wooden housing.

Laevastiku

Consistent housing quarters dates from the 1940s. The buildings architecture is similar with the so-called “Tallinn house”

Kalamaja

The oldest suburb of Tallinn. There could be watched development of 19’th cent cheap rental housing of factory labourer into the Soviet standard buildings.

Raua

The area is consists many valuable houses established in several stages, there is no uniformity in buildings’ scale or in planning, but side by side there are buildings of top architects from several eras.

Merivälja

The area is a coherent private housing area, which is designed on the principles of a garden city, and it is characterized by rich vegetation and large plots.

The area is included to the “milieu valuable areas”in 2012

Pirita

Pelgulinn

Coherent private housing area. Most of the houses are built in 1950s.

The area is included to the “milieu valuable areas”in 2012

Kassisaba

This was a gorgeous and wealthy seaside resort. Nowadays there could be seen houses mostly built in the turn of the 19th and 20’th century.

The oldest houses in the area are railway constructors’ houses from 1870s. In 1920s many quality residential housings were built and Tallinn type of apartment buildings next to terrace houses.

Developed as a suburb of Toompea. The system plots was developed 17th till the mid-19th century. The architectural milieu is contrasty compared to other wooden settlements. The buildings are from different periods, oldest are from the turn of the 19th and 20’th century.

Kadriorg

Old Town

Torupilli

The majority construction activity began in the early 20th century. There are also examples of 19’th century architecture as some residential buildings and industrial limestone buildings.

Uusmaailm

The area of current settlement was up to 19 mid-century a meadow. Most of the wooden buildings are from the years 1890 to 1939. There are also some stalinslistic stone buildings in the area.

Kitseküla

Sikupilli

There can be found buildings from the 1897-1939, the majority of 1900-1913, and from 1928 to 1939. The area is remarkable for diversity of residential architecture in a quite small territory.

The area consists of residential housing built in the beginning of 20th century and stalinistic style housing, built after destruction of houses during the Second World War

Tatari

Veerenni

Nõmme

The best part of Nõmme residential dwellings are from the years 1920-1940, including both private houses and small apartment houses with 2-4 apartments.

40

Permanent buildings in this area occurred only in 1870. years. This is one of the first regions which was planned as a whole. One of the peculiarities of the settlement are the several houses built in 1920s with the national loan.

Older buildings date from1880s. The facades and floor plans of the houses in the area are close to Tallinn type of wooden buildings, but theses are larger and more presentable. However most of the houses were built in 1910s during the building boom. This was a district of middle-class people.

41

Mustamäe panel housing

In 1959 was plan of Mustamäe adopted and 1962 started the build the first panel house in Mustamäe.

Construction was finished in 1973.

Väike-Õismäe panel housing

1973-1978 building of the settlement of Väike-õismäe. In 80’s was Väike-Õismäe awarded with USSR State Prize.

Lasnamäe panel housing

1977 started to build Lasnmägi. Most of the public buildings are not built. Nowaday there are lot of planning and building on the area.

42

43

Between bogs and villas:

THE RUINS OF SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM IN PÄÄSKÜLA

Between bogs and villas:

THE RUINS OF SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM IN PÄÄSKÜLA

Andra Aaloe

THE FIELD BETWEEN THE CLIFF AND COPPICE There is a wasteland-like strip wedged between Pääsküla’s residential district bordered with a sand cliff, and Harku bog. I have been drawn there on different reasons since the childhood. Of course the bog that is on the other side of the strip was an attraction, and surely the sand cliff that served as a good sledge riding slope. But the pride and privilege I remember having, that my granny’s home was so close to Maksimarket, the first supermarket in the Baltics, was the greatest attraction of the area for a small-town girl. Now, later, I have been drawn there because of the cliff itself and the view that opens from there: a mis-en-scene of the fight between the skeleton of modernist architecture, a ruin, in the middle of the intrusive nature. The double-site, Maksimarket and the skeleton in the coppice, turned out to be a generous resource to unravel the themes of monumentality, collective memory, past and future and the role of time, linear and circular, in the physical space.

The area itself is a base of former sand quarry from the first republic. On year 1959 the evened base of the quarry was given to ETKVL (Estonian Consumer Cooperatives Republican Union) for Tallinn’s new centre of logistics on the base of open-ended contract with the city. Part of the area was filled with the buildings which are still functioning as the headquarters of the corpora-

tion. Some of the plot remained to be open air storage grounds until the expansion of ETKVL was planned and partly built in the end of the eighties until the development was frozen because of the change of regime.

Most of the land of the ETKVL area was privatised in the beginning of the 2nd republic by the re-established corporation of ETK (Estonian Consumers’ Cooperative). Parts of their lands were sold later. Now, most of the area is owned by different private enterprises and developers. Also the big warehouses of ETK are free for renting as the logistics centre moved recently to Assaku where the connection with the other main roads is times better.

It is pure periphery as the site is pushed by the sand cliff against the city border that runs in parallel with the tree line of the bog, and the periphery constitutes the today’s situation. Without having any surrounding infrastructure – no shops or schools or roads that could service the area’s development into new residential area, most of the development projects have been rejected.

Nõmme’s administration has agreed on the necessity of developing thematic plan for the area’s unified development, as there are now many privately owned plots and it can get messy otherwise.

TWO STRUCTURES

Transition

New future

Maksimarket

Development project: Freezer was to be an innovation and a bit of a better life for all of us. Frozen goods were to be brought in by train, perhaps also from the ports and foreign countries, and distributed all over Tallinn and beyond. Also all kinds of packages needed to be stored as a part of the vast capital’s main food distributor. So the plan to develop ETKVL was to build a and a package storage on the giant freezer vacant lands of the logistics centre.

That development project was frozen before completion. There was no point to do it anymore. Already started structures were left to wait for the new future that all Estonia was to dive in.

Cowboys sat on their buffalos and started moving towards the future’s promise — wealth. Former ETKVL now ETK consisted of private stakeholders, who put the advantage they had into use the best way they could. Metal.

In the same time the past future’s centre of all Tallinn’s packaging was turned into at first wholesale to sell all the goods to now new private shops and soon after, by few observation trips to Finland and Sweden and good creativity, it was turned into the first supermarket of Baltics. And it boomed, the new money coming from all the metal and private businesses established on the remains of the union was in need for a place to spend it.

Metal All the metal of Soviet Union was to be collected and processed and sent away. All the machinery, the promise of previous myths, and all the metal buckets that could now be swapped to the durable plastic ones. Freezer was never completed as a building but functioned as a

load-bearing wall to a giant roof that covered part of the vast scrap metal yard and metal processing centre. And metal was coming in by railroads and lorries, then the lorries themselves were coming in and also in the end the rails were made to money. When all the union and previous assets, suddenly now owned by people, were exchanged for money – the new law – metal processing plant was closed down and silence was laid upon the site.

It paid for itself in two years and created the first shopping boom ever in Estonia. As soon as the competing supermarkets popped up in other locations, it ceased making profit and was shut down.

2002

1992 the previous construction process officially frozen, since then until mid-nineties scrap metal processing yard.

Silence

1992 1994

1994 wholesale 2000 Tihniku Maksimarket

Relative silence after the storm 2002 Konsum 2000 ... electronics wholesale, 2006 cardboard packaging production

1992/1993

2007

ca 1996

2012

Transitional societies are always working in two directions: they are building bright future and dealing with complicated past.

The turbulent present is disregarded.

FROZEN TIMES Transitional societies are always working in two directions: they are building bright future and dealing with complicated past.

The turbulent present is disregarded.

The birth, freezing and afterlife of the double-site is characteristic to the era of transition from socialism to free market capitalism. The planned container storage was made into the first hypermarket in the Baltics, “Tihniku Maksimarket” that pulled in visitors from all over the Baltics and Finland and had even its own bus line serving the customers. The neighbouring construction (initially planned as a freezer) was not completed as a building but functioned as a load-bearing wall to a giant roof that covered part of the vast scrap metal yard and metal processing centre.

Reality struck, or, probably striking was the location in the middle of nowhere. It was a capitalism in Soviet form – in its unrealised future and progress, in the ruins of Tallinn’s central freezer and central packaging storage.

All is silent now. No one even remembers what was there when passing by, as this was the turbulent childhood and adolescence of a nation, between the rebirth and maturity. The site would be carrying the memory loss of the collective trauma of the transition times.

Progress and failure

Scrapping the Soviet union’s remains – metal – to get by in the new system, and building the first hypermarket out of a warehouse on the outskirts of the town that started the first shopping-boom in Estonia – those are good examples of future and the past being processed through the physical space in the present.

Reindependence’s memory discourse was set by historians – new Estonia was to be the restoration of the first republic in the neoliberal capitalism, and decades under Soviet Union were mere interruption in the progress of capitalist Estonia. In the mythological union of people rising and winning the battle against one of the world biggest powers, the failure of the previous system and the failure of the progress, also personal one, went unnoticed. This site could be taken as a monument for all the failures in the societal transition. It is still here, disregarded and left unnoticed, in the same way as the transition time’s collective adolescence is not regarded by the collective memory.

It was early capitalism on the Soviet remains: no competition but also no rules, only the inherited advantages.

After competitors started popping up, Maksimarket had hard time getting the ends meet and was shut off soon.

When the state’s umbilical cord (monopoly, dotation, railroad connection) was cut off, the site tried but failed to start independent life. It was left to wait for new futures that haven’t still come.

1

Benjamin calls fetishism the refusal to see failure. This kind of fetishism constitutes phantasmagorias that are the base of all the myths of reality and that in itself reproduces the sense of movement whilst actually standing still – world of progress that is in reality a stagnant hell. There is no truth under the world of fetish and nowhere to escape from it, but there is a way to be in alliance with the critical thought: through working with the material world, one can spot and enhance the failure around us to undermine the fetishism.

The unfinished, unadaptable structure could be considered as the monument for all the big and little failures of the societal transition. The epochs of history left out of the collective memory.

The development plan of the new buildings was frozen and the idea was never realised. But there is a structure on the site. That structure can be one of Robert Smithson’s

Ruins in reverse – proto architecture, referring to the time between the beginning of construction and the beginning of building’s proper use.

2

Smithson’s ruin doesn’t disregard the progress as it can still happen – the building can still get ready and be taken into proper use – but rather pauses the time to reveal the utopia’s bottomlessness. He says: Passaic is full of holes…

And they are the monumental vacancies that define without trying the memory-traces of an abandoned set of futures.

And all the linear dimensions of time are coming together in a present moment.

What about the ruins where the force beyond the idea has ceased and the future will never come? It could be the same proto-architecture with a clause ‘frozen’ (as noone can determine the end before the end is there). So the ruin in reverse in an extended state, if not eternal,

paused is the ruin that has once risen into the ruin and crumbles as it. So:

Frozen ruins in reverse?

So the skeleton base of the modernist architecture, a future freezer to be, would be in itself already ready monument to the unrealised ideas and failed futures of the times. If it melts, it can melt into anything, structure is free, if it doesn’t, it represents the time and all the possible futures being frozen behind the ribs of Le Corbusier’s “primitive hut” of the modernity.

Architectural space, in the purity of its formal and conceptual genesis, is emptied of all considerations of time and is seen as a formal and aesthetic object.

Time is frozen out or, rather, time is frozen.

But this act is not an oversight, a mere forgetting of time.

More it is an active defence against ‘the terror of time’, says Karsten Harries. This illusionary power of an architecture of controlling the time by freezing it in the buildings is twisted here: it is a monument, seemingly static perpetuity of ferro-concrete floating in the middle of a vast open space, it is like Villa Savoye, but this structure is in a wait for futures that will never bring it the redemption of true differentiation (in deleuzian sense) as it is complete in the state of unfinished and it has no chance to escape from the reality of constant pregnancy that never gets alighted.

This place can be Lieu de Mémoire that illuminates the liberating Nietzschean failure via recalling the collective experience of failure of the transition time, that is now disregarded in collective memory.

Les Lieux de Mémoire, Realms of memory, are the places and the objects in which the national memory is incarnated /.../ which form a fragmentary, incomplete vision of the past as seen from the present. It is the fact that they are selected and contemplated by contemporaries that ensures their presence in the collective space and imagination. Pierre Nora Melting

3

Villa Savoye Villa Savoye deteriorated totally, physically and morally, until its value as a central piece of the discourse as Memorial Research Centre for Modern Architecture’s History was established by transforming it to be “lieu de memoire” for early modernism. The new Villa Savoye was constructed in the architectural and popular literature, from where it was picked up by French government that sponsored the renovations. The site was to signify nation’s political autonomy and cultural attainment in the 20th century.

Villa Savoye had served only briefly and imperfectly as a residence. The owners were facing mechanical and structural problems from the day they moved in and Le Corbusier failed to correct them. Its only true function had been and would continue to be, as a demonstration of the architect’s aesthetics. Namely – the illustration for “Five Points of Modern Architecture” Frozen ruin in reverse?

4

5

6

DECLARATION (WHERE IT ALL STOPS)

So I am proposing to declare this site here to be the heritage site, the monument for the collective but forgotten failures and unrealized dreams of the past futures.

Or perhaps now, as the surrounding time has entered, it is time to go and have a closer look of the silent melting of the refridgerator of frozen time in order to re-position ourselves in the tumultuous contingency?

DEFROST & IN THE SILENCE SOMEONE SHOUTS Circular time and crumbling materia Years that went by, days and nights and summers and autumns, winters and freezing and springs and thaw and rain and wind and fog coming from the bog and seeds carried from the trees and dust that gives them place to germinate, for to stretch their roots deeper in the concrete, to crack them and to let the water in for it to freeze and thaw and freeze and thaw so that the plant could stretch its roots even more and so that more water could enter the cracks to wash out the binding components of concrete so that perhaps eventually the roof accepts the pull of gravity and turns to be ground again the forest can then thrive on it as it was supposed from the beginning.

That is the “terror of time” that the architect of the superstructure wanted to ditch. The uncontrollable process that undermines all the progress and thus employs us for the constant upkeep, to the cleaning away the traces that circular time scratches on the walls of our castles to preserve the illusion of values the house in its

unscratched state represents – the frozen time, “the stagnant hell” where to fuss about.

Thick Time. It is a present that gathers the past and pregnantly holds the future, but not in an easy linear manner, writes Jeremy Till, “Through its grounding in an extended present, this spatial future will not be disturbed by the influx and flux of time, but will sustain all those conflicting conditions (of occupational change, of weathering as completion, of indeterminate manoeuvres, of 7 habitual actions) that everyday time brings with it.” is a perfect stage where to observe the slow redefining of the architectural form to nature and to sense how through the crumbling of materia the ideas and failures are redeemed, released, defrozed and turned to be a part of the general flux of time and flying seeds.

CIRCLE

(WHERE THE LINEARITY MANIFESTS)

COOPERATIVE TRADE MUSEUM (THE HOME OF TIMEKEEPERS)

ETK Cooperative Trade Museum and the arhcive of ETK Established 1974, collection: 4100

8

‘Museum collection consists of 37 displays of the history of the cooperative trade in photo and writing, of shop interior from the thirties with 400 showpieces, over 100 books, brochures, compilations, albums, loads of magazines, photos, chronicles, documents, trade samples, cups etc.’

There was no information about the site available in the city archives, no planning documents. I went to search for them in the Cooperative Trade Museum in the ETK headquarters. After few attempts to make sure that it exists at all (as at first the security lady wasn’t aware of its existence) and few letters exchanged, I got the museum keeper’s email to fix the meeting in the museum. Alfons, a sweet and grumpy old man, the keeper of the history and curator of the museum, who has written many tutorial books about groceries (such as ‘Sugar, Flour and Fats’) has in recent years published a book about the history of Estonian trade cooperatives.

Into one of the office spaces a shop is built by him in a form of first republic’s small shops. He didn’t have any

photos about the first years of re-established ETK. Only few lines in the book he had written. But we called to the archive keeper to ask if she has materials about the building prospects or plans. She answered sharp ‘no’.

Few minutes later she called back, saying suspiciously…

‘Well, actually I do have something. Come and have a look. But I cannot promise anything.’

I was sent to another building and in one point of the labyrinths of closed doors, a door opened and Ene invited me in. She has been working in the archives of ETKVL and ETK for decades. It is an enormous collection, all the Estonian ETK facilities are sending their things there. But it used to be way bigger, she said.

‘The biggest terror was when the first head of the freshly privatised ETK came to the archive and emptied shef after shelf to burn it all. I managed to slip off 4 boxes of planning documents. But as I said, I cannot promise anything.’

The perspective wasn’t promising indeed. Spent an hour of going through endless maps of piping plans and geological measurements. And in one of them the secret of my sites were revealed. As a prospect the freezer and packaging container were mapped.

LINEARITY (THAT THE CIRCLE ENHANCES)

10 YEARS (WAYS OF FINISHING)

Marking the territory

10 YEARS

GRAFFITI PROJECT BY ESTONIAN OLDEST COLLECTIVES’ COLLECTIVE ‘EKS’ The plan for decorating the

and first drawings were done in year 2007.

It stayed unfinished until this november when it was completed in a very holistic manner – it’s a tribute to EKS’s 10 years of activity.

Literature 1

Walter Benjamin, The Origin of German Tragic Drama, New York:

Verso, 1998, p 234 2

Robert Simthson, A Tour of the Monuments in Passaic. p 74

Karsten Harries, Building and the Terror of Time, Perspecta 19 3 (1982): 52–69.

Kevin D. Murphy, The Villa Savoye and the Modernist Historic 4 Monument, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Mar., 2002), p 71 5

Ibid p 74

6

ibid

7

Jeremy Till, Thick Time, Collected Writings, 1999, p 7

8

www.etk.ee/ettevottest/ajalugu/etk-uhiskaubandusmuuseum

Estonian Academy of Arts Urban Studies Master Programme Tutor Maros Krivy 2013

Estonian Academy of Arts Urban Studies Master Programme Tutor Maros Krivy 2013

Estonian Academy of Arts Urban Studies Master Programme Tutor Maros Krivy 2013