JAMES HASSELL”

T. PETERSBURG was the first capital city in the history of the West to be planted in a wasteland and planned from the beginning. Founded in 1703 l, it considerably antedates better known examples of planned capitals such as Wash-

ington, D.C. and Brasilia. Despite the strong current interest in city planning, recent histories of the subject in English either ignore St. Petersburg completely or touch on the city with only a few brief generalizations.

When Peter Ithe Great (1682-1725) began building the new capital of Russia, Louis XIV in France was still furbishing his royal residence a t Versailles. Peter and Louis both undertook these works as visible expressions of absolutism. Louis observed that “to aggrandize oneself was the worthiest and most agreeable occupation of a sovereign,” and he might have added the corollary that a most pleasurable means of aggrandizement is monumental building. Peter shared these sentiments.

St. Petersburg reached the architectural form that characterizes it today in the reign of Ernperor Alexander I (1801-1825). Mon- archical aggrandizement remained a significant incentive for monumental building, but by that time nationalism had developed as an additional stimulus. The first decades of the nineteenth century mark the rise of nationalism as a new and powerful force

*The author is Lecturer a: Philadclphia College of Textile and Science. Dates pertaining Lo Russia are according to the Julian calendar which was

used there until after the 1917 revolution. For the eighteenth century, dating lags eleven days behind the Gregorian calendar of the West. For the nineteenth century, the lag is twelve days.

a Representative works on urban history are T h e City in Western Civilization, comps. Herbert Druks and Silvio R. Lacetti (N.Y., 1971); Frederick R. Hiorns, Town-building in History; r,ii Outline Review of Conditions, Influences, Ideas, and Methods affecting “Planned” Towns through Five Thousand Years (London, 1956): Dorothea I\.loholy-Nagy, Matt-ix of Man; an Zlluslruteil History of Urban Environment (N.Y., 1968); Lewis Mumford, T h e City in History: its Origins, its Transformations, and its Prospects (N.Y., 1961); Helen Rosenau, T h e Ideal City in its Architectural Evolution (Boston, Mass., 1959); Arnold Toynbee, Cities on the Move (N.Y., 1970): Paul Zuckcr, T o w n aiid Square, from the Agora to the Village Green (N.Y., 1959). A volume that will include the urban history of the Soviet Union is planned for Erwin Gutkind’s International History of City Development (N.Y., 1964- ) but has not yet been published.

248

St. Petersburg in European affairs. Russians experienced this most vividly in turning back the Napoleonic invasion of their homeland. Although Russian nationalism at this early stage had meaning only for the privileged elite and existed in attenuated form, it nevertheless had some influence in the crucial building program of Alexander I. Emerging national feeling was expressed archi- tecturally, above all in the national capital. The city of St. Petersburg consequently developed as a product of monarchical self-aggrandizement combined with glorification of the nation.

‘The building ambitions of Russian monarchs are well known. Peter the Great, founder of the new capital which he named for his patron saint, “wished to have his capital equal the residences of foreign sovereigns.” Catherine the Great (1762-1796) wrote of construction in St. Petersburg, characteristically making light of the enterprise but unmistakably exuding pride in the energy displayed: “At this moment there is raging here a fury for building worse than at any other time, and I doubt that earth- quakes could ever have demolished as many structures a5 we are erecting. . . . It is clearly a disease, somewhat like t i ~ p l i n g . ” ~ Alexander I “intended making St. Petersburg more beautiful than all the capitals he visited in Europe.” Peter and Alexander were thinking in the context of the European state system. They were determined that the Russian sovereign and the Russian seat of government be second to none. Such a sensitive feeling of rivalry with foreign states was a contributing element to early Russian nationalism.

T h e Early Years of St . Petersburg The new Russian city was officially founded in May 1703,

and by 1706 Peter had established a Chancellery for Urban Concerns to supervise the building of St. Petersburg. In contrast to the old capital, Moscow, the new capital was strategically located on the Baltic, an advantageous position from which to promote Russia’s growing involvement in European affairs. The emperor wished to build a city in dramatic contrast to existing Russian towns. Western European capitals, particularly Amster- dam, served as models. The foremost authority on St. Petersburg

8 Pave1 Miliukov, Outlines of Russian Culture, ed. Michael Karpovich, trans.

4From a letter to Grimm, quoted by Miliukov, Outlines of Russian Cul lwe ,

5Filip Vigel’, Zupiski (5 vols.; MOSCOW, 1891-1892), V, 22-23, cited by Miliukov,

0 s. p. Luppov, Istoriia stroitel’stva Peterburga v pervoi chetverti XVIII ueka

Valentine Ughet and Eleanor Davis (3 vols.; Philadelphia, 1942), 111, 16.

111, 16.

Outlines of Russian Culture, 111, 16.

(Moscow, 1957), 62.

249

The Historian in its earliest years has summarized what appear to have been the essential elements in Peter’s planning:

1) to create a well-built city with straight streets, neatly aligned stone buildings, and with large parks, boulevards, and a canal system;

2) ‘to make the waterways (Neva River, channels, canals) the chief means of communication and to extend the city as far as possible toward the sea;

3 ) to regulate strictly all building in the city; 4) to designate for each group of inhabitants a certain section

of the city; 5 ) to organize the merchant-industrialists into guilds and to

concentrate city administration in their hands.7 The first two of these aims were the best realized, although with notable lapses.

Peter the Great tried to regulate his administration as closely as possible. Planning was no exception. The emperor’s taste must prevail, his ideas must be executed in detail, so wealthy home- builders were forced to depart radically from their accustomed inclinations. The traditional h40scow mansion presented a blank wall to the street, facing into its own courtyard. Peter demanded that in the new capital, all buildings including dwellings must front on the street, and out-buildings were to be concealed in the rear. Peter also designated certain styles of buildings to accord with the owner’s economic status. A special style was mandatory for those buildings located along the river embank- ments.s Typical uC the emperor were his orders regarding a particular slaughterhouse that had offended his sensibilities. The ramshackle complex was “to be laid out with a uniform front, resembling a dwelling house, with false windows, and to be painted for a better appearance.” Obviously outward appearance was a primary concern.

The principal streets of St. Petersburg were laid out in straight lines and were exceplionally wide. The main avenue, Nevskii Prospect, averaged 130 feet in width. Flanking drainage ditches, or canals running down the centers of the streets, initially neces- sitated such exceptional widths. By the second half of the eighteenth century many of the ditches and canals were filled in, but very wide streets remained customary. This feature in fact was commonly adopted in newly developing provincial towns. 10

The interests of ordinary citizens counted for little in the

?IDad., 24. Ibid., 46-47.

”Ibzd., 48. 10 A. V. Bunin, Istoriia gradostroitel’nogo iskusstva (h.Ioscow, 1953), 394.

250

St. Petersburg fundamentally authoritarian planning of St. Petersburg. Extra- ordinary citizens fared no better. In 1709 “the lord ministers, generals, and eminent nobles were ordered to build stone mansions” to speed the growth of Peter’s new capital.I1 Man- power, materiel, and money were ruthlessly commandeered by the emperor and poured into the marshy estuary of the Neva. “The inhabitants of Petersburg . . . were required themselves to pave the streets, to construct embankments, to fight fires, to stand watch, etc. Each government innovation in city service signified a new obligation for the populace.” l2

One incidental benefit to the residents was the government’s genuine concern for fire prevention. Regulations directed that tile or sod be used for roofing as security against sparks; stoves and chimneys were not to adjoin the walls, and all householders were required to clean their chimneys at least once a month. Although such detailed regulations were not fully enforced, visitors were impressed by the effectiveness of citizens’ fire-fighting brigades in which the emperor himself delighted to participate.

In the course of the eighteenth century, St. Petersburg became a city of canals, reminiscent of Amsterdam. Concentric semicircles of canals and streets radiated outwards from a central point. The central point in St. Petersburg was the Admiralty Building, built on the left bank of the Neva River where it begins to branch out and form a delta as it flows westward into the Gulf of Finland. Here the river is very broad, ranging from 250 to more than 500 yards across. A succession of canals were dug parallel to the Neva (their ends swinging in to connect with the river), marking the qrowth of the city in a southerly direction from the left bank. Three main streets also fanned out southward, starting from the Admiralty Building and intersecting the canals as they progressed. The northeasternmost of these streets was Nevskii Prospect, the main thoroughfare of the city.

T h e original Admiralty was later rebuilt, but the impressive Peter-Paul Fortress, which remains a major landmark, was the first public edifice to be constructed under Peter’s direction. It stands on the right bank of the Neva, across and somewhat upstream from the Admiralty. A cathedral within the fortress is the burial place of Peter and his successors, and its tall spire can be glimpsed from many parts of the city. Also on the right bank and opposite the Admiralty, Peter built the Twelve Colleges, a single structure originally housing government departments

11 LUPPOV, Istoriia stroitel’stva Peterburga, 24. ”Ibid., 152. la Ibid., 48 and 146-149.

25 I

The Historian (kollegii) and now part of Leningrad University. The Academy of Sciences was later situated between the Twelve Colleges Build- ing and the Peter-Paul Fortress. In the mid-eighteenth century, work began on the huge Winter Palace, still standing on the left bank, only ii few hundred yards upstream of the Admiralty. These public buildings, flanking the Neva River, formed the heart of St. Petersburg.

The impression of the capital was one of flatness, enormous spaces, some half-dozen monumental buildings, but with an overall raw, unfinished quality still noticeable into the nineteenth century. Stone and brick were used for the great public buildings and a few palatial private residences, but the majority of structures were wooden.

Ways and Means of Planning into the Nineteenth Century Some of Peter the Great’s general goals for the capital were

kept alive alter his death, and his favorable view of planning was not challenged, but not until the nineteenth century was there a vigorous enactment of these ideas.

In the interim, Catherine the Great sponsored a Commission for Masonry Construction of St. Petersburg and Moscow. This group organized a Competition, open to foreigners as well as Russians, for the best plan of St. Petersburg, but the winner, if any, was curiously never announced. l4 Undaunted, Russian architects later drew up a very detailed and grandiose project, “the axonometric plan for St. Petersburg.” A separate plan sketched possible future growth of the capital’s suburbs. Some of this thinking was reflected in building that occurred in the central part of the city, but most of the ideas remained on paper.15

The Commission for Masonry Construction soon received formal authorization to supervise building throughout the empire. Between 1762 and 1796 the Commission approved 416 plans for various Russian towns.16 These developments show that by 1800 the principle of city planning was well established in Russia. They also point to the fundamental assumption that the central govern- ment should regulate planning.

Empress Catherine’s moves to supervise urban construction throughout the empire were carried further by Alexander I. Provincial authorities were required to send designs €or govern-

14Pierre Lavedan, Histoire de L’Urbanisrne (3 vols.; Paris, 1941), 11, 271. *Zstoriia russkogo iskusstvn, ed. I . E. Grabar’ et al. (12 vols.; Moscow, 1953-1968),

\‘I, 237-242 and Zstoriia russkoi arkhitektury, ed. S. V. Bezsonov (Moscow, 1951),

Hans Blumenfeld, “Russian City Planning of the 18th and early 19th 187-190.

Centuries,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, IV (1944), 27.

252

St. Petersburg ment buildings to the Ministry of Interior where ithey were checked against a master plan. Overseeing this operation was the highly respected architect, Adrian Zakharov, whose masterpiece was the present Admiralty Building. 17 In 18 10 the Senate explicitly forbade provincial authorities to construct anything not authorized by plan. This general warning was occasioned by a Senate rebuke to the officials of Kasimov, Riazin Province, who had permitted a tannery to be erected contrary to the imperially approved plan for that town.ls

The struggle to achieve uniformity involved the police in distributing to provincial officials samples of approved designs for private structures, gates, and railings. Each town was charged seventeen and one-half rubles per sample and was expected to adhere to them in all construction. Alexander's mania for uni- formity is strikingly expressed in an ukaz to the police minister:

It is forbidden to paint houses in gaudy colors such as I have seen, for instance, when shutters and doors of white-washed houses were painted black. Generally speaking, you may permit houses to be painted in the following colors only: white, pale yellow, light gray, dark gray, pink, or light green, but with a strong admixture of white and yellowivh gray.

The police were ordered to prepare samples of these colors for the benefit of the populace.20 As the emperor revealed in this case, his precepts were not always followed, but the official predilection was certainly to strive for rigid conformity in the appearance of Russian towns.

Russian city planning, although decidedly authoritarian, was never completely centralized, even under Alexander I. At one time or another during his reign, all of the following had some share in planning St. Petersburg: the emperor himself, the Peters- burg military governor-general, the director of waterways, the police, the Ministry of Interior, the Naval Ministry, the Ministry of Commerce, the city council (duma), the Medico-Philanthropic Committee, a Committee for Urban Construction, a Committee of Construction and Hydraulic Works, and a series of special commissions for major projects, such as the Stock Exchange, the

1' Report of minister of interior, Polnoe sobranie rakonov rossisskoi imperii, fiist series (16 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1830-1839), XXIX, 7 Sept. 1806, NO. 22267 (hereafter citcd as PSZ).

laps%, XXXI, 15 May 1810, No. 24333. Members of the Russian Senate were appointed by the emperor and seiverl a t his pleasure. The Senate during this period supervised the imperial administration and judiciary and issued routine laws.

*OPSZ, XXXI, 1 July 1811, No. 24703. "PSZ, XXXI, 13 Dec. 1817, No. Z180, pts. 45 and 46.

25 3

The Historian new Admiralty Building, and St. Isaac’s Cathedral. As the reign progressed, however, ultimate responsibility came more and more to be shared by the Ministry of Interior and the police, with Alexander acting significantly as fiiial arbiter.

Planning for the capital went 1hroug.h a series of stages during the first quarter of the nineteenth century.21 In 1802 the police were directed to take over general responsibility for building. Their effective chief was the Petersburg military governor- general; there was no Ministry of Police until 1811. T h e governor-general was expressly responsible for the construction of army barracks in the capital also. The Naval Ministry separ- ately concerned itself with putting up naval barracks and other marine structures. At this time, the city council worked in conjunction with the policc to approve the construction of all private buildings in the capital.

Gradually the Ministry of Interior, instituted in 1802, began to encroach on the building responsibilities of the police. Other authorities such as the director of waterways or the Ministry of Comrnercc were allowed to build only under close imperial supervision.22 By 1810 the Ministry of Interior was given juris- diction over construction of buildings whereas the police were limited to maintaining the means of communication (roads, bridges, waterways). 23 Interior’s growing role in building was strengthened in 1813 when it was made responsible for construc- tion in nll cities. The minister of interior had objected that the police sometimes clashed with his department over certain phases of construction, so he was declared solely responsible for publicly financed building. 34

As regards St. Petersburg specifically, an important new Committee of Construction and Hydraulic Works was set up in 1816 to oversee all construction projects in the capital. The main duty of the Committee was to insure that all building would be aesthetically satisfactory. The ultimate goal was “to bring the capital to aesthetic perkction.” Committee members were to study the existing state of things and lay down guidelines for future building or rebuilding. The Committee was to work closely with the St. Petersburg military governor-general, and all of its proposals would go to the emperor for approval.25

The following developments have been traced from PSZ, XXVII-XL. =The Ministry of Commerce was directed to build certain storehouses in 1804,

for example, but the emperor designated their style and location “according to the project of Architect Thomon,” PSZ, XXVIII, 23 Sept. 1804, No. 21464.

“PSZ, XXXI, 25 July 1810, No. 24307 and 17 Aug. 1810, No. 24326. =PSZ, XXXII, 29 May 1813, No. 25392. =PSZ, XXXIII, 3 May 1816, No. 26253.

254

St. Petersburg Heading this powerful group was an excellent engineer who

had made his reputation in Spain and France, Lt.-General Bethancourt. On the staff were the outstanding architects of the day, including Carlo Rossi and Vasily Stasov. Bethancourt’s secretary has recorded that the Committee worked m a t closely with the military governor-general. 26 Although the Ministry of Interior now had jurisdiction over public building throughout the empire, the military governor-general, with his close ties to the emperor and continuing influence 017er the police, remained the single most important authority over affairs in the capital.

Bethancourt’s Committee, working with the governor-general, centralized the planning of St. Petersburg to a degree never before realized. Nonetheless, important projects could be launched without coming before the Committee. This happened mainly through the creation of “special commissions.” Already noted were those for the Stock Exchange, Admiralty, and St. Isaac’s. Two important ones for the latter part of Alexander’s reign were the Commission for Lhe Reconstruction of Palace Square and the Commission for the Construction of Alexander Theater. This state of affairs is illustrated in a letter from the military governor- general to a minister of the Imperial Cabinet:

. . . certain projects under the jurisdiction of the commission could not be inspected by the “committee” [Bethancourt’s committee], for the simple reason that in recent times certain authorities have presented them directly to His Majesty for highest approval. The “committee” has therefore not even a copy of these projects and is unable to transfer the intorma- tion gained from these drawings to the general plan of St. Petersburg. In order to prevent the recurrence of such difficulties in the future I humbly beg Your Eminence to issue instructions to have sent to my office a copy of all the plans and projects which have been approved by His Highness, and which have not been previously inspected, in order that these may be conveyed to the committee for study.37

Even though Bethancourt’s Committee could not realize its legislative mandate fully, St. Petersburg was developing as a unified ensemble. New buildings were designed and simtuated to enhance those already standing. Builders endeavored to maintain given styles along the Neva embankments and each of the canals. Scores of canal bridges added a particular charm to the capital. The spire of the Admiralty was the focal point of the central

WVigel‘, Zupiski, V, 31. =From the “Collection of the Commerce College” in the Central State

Historical Archives of Leningrad, quoted by 1U.A. Egorov, The Architectural Planning of St. Petersburg, trans. Eric Dluhosch (Athens, O., 1969), 101.

255

The Historian district and could be clearly viewed down the lengths of the three main radial streets. Numerous squares of vast proportions and the immense width of Nevskii Prospect invested the central district with a striking sense of openness and spaciousness.

An important element of coordination in all this was provided by the emperor. Alexander and, after him, Nicholas I personally approved all plans for public building in the capital. Of even greater importance was the shared taste of the builders. According to Vigel’ only Bethancourt held any reservations about the severe Empire style favored by Alexander. Bethancourt had been charmed by Moorish embellishments that he knew from Spain, but other committee members fully approved the classical Greek style. There was considerable overlapping in the membership of Bethancourt’s Committee and of the various special Commis- sions, and this of course helped to provide coordination. Rossi, for example, was a permanent member of all such commissions.29 The architects responsible for public building in the capital, and much of the private, were a small group linked by formal and informal ties. They shared basically the same aesthetic principles and vision of how St. Petersburg should develop, and their shared spirit was reflected in harmonious results.

Planning and the Public Interest St. Fetersburg residents had as little voice in the affairs of

their city under Alexander I as had been true in the time of Peter the Great. They were subject to various exactions and sometimes ordered to undertake projects themselves, but as time went on they more often paid fees and taxes. Government lip service was given to certain issues of public welfare, but in practice very little was done for the ordinary citizen. Both restrictions on and benefits for citizens were proclaimed in uncompromising terms, but implementation was commonly negligent and sporadic despite the official language. The instructions to Bethancourt’s Commit- tee are characteristic in tone:

Indicate where wooden structures are permissible (with adequate fire security mandatory) and where they must be of stone. Set safety standards for stoves, chimneys, baths, etc. Establish convenient centers for garbage collection. Name those main streets on which the residents must construct stone sidewalks adjacent to their homes. Provide clean and healthy water for the city.30

The inhabitants of the capital were particularly subject to the

28Vigc1’, Zapiski, V, 26. 2B Istoriia ruukogo iskusstzn, T‘III, bh. 1, 4F. IwPSZ, XXXIII, 3 May 1816, No. 26253.

256

St. Petersburg personal scrutiny of the emperor. In directives to the military governor-general, Alexander dwelt on questions of construction and fire security for private residences. He conceded that wooden homes might be built on certain of the main streets, but only according to the approved plan, and that they must have stone cellars, the cellars to be no deeper than 7 feet.31 Any w d e n dwellings with stoves were required to be a t least 85 feet apart, and the governor-general was authorized to construct firewalls a t critical points, so long as they did not spoil appearances from the street. 32

Many Petersburg residents were required to construct their own sidewalks, and the specifications were laid out in great detail. Citing from the emperor’s ukaz on this matter:

Sidewalks are to line both sides of all Petersburg streets, follow the river banks, and encircle the squares. They will be granite or flagstone, 5 feet wide, slope 1% inches toward the street, and be 3 to 9 inches above the roadway. Rainspouts must descend vertically to the sidewalk, ending about 7 inches above its surface. Anyone building a house in St. Petersburg in the future must provide a sidewalk with it.83

T h e results elicited even foreign comment. I n 1819 the

Since his visit to England the Emperor has had foot- pavements of excellent granite made all over the town, which was effected by a single order, that such a thing was to be done and requiring each individual to finish the part in front of his house, in default of which the police would finish it at his expense. If a street looks tame34 he selects the house or houses which are intended to remedy the deformity and orders the proprietors to build a portico in front with all the necessary ornaments, as in a plan sent to him - and, that to be finished in a limited time. Nobody grumbles. The will of the Emperor must be obeyed, and as those things happen to individuals only once in a lifetime, there is never a sufficient private interest excited against the measure, which is intended for the establishment of the whole.35

English Lord Cathcart was in St. Petersburg and wrote:

aMost new buildings put up in the latter part of Alexander’s reign were of stone, but they were still outnumbered two to one by wooden structures. In 1833 there were 2,730 stone buildings in St. Petersburg and 5,246 of wood. Figures from Ocherki istorii Leningrada. Period feodalizina (1703-1861 gg.), ed. M. P. Viatkin (6 vols.; Moscow-Leningrad, 1955- ), I, 612-613.

=PSZ, XXVIII, 9 July 1804, No. 21390; XXX, 30 Sept. 1809, No. 23874; XXXI, 15 Mar. 1810, No. 24152.

“ P S Z , XXXIII, 30 Oct. 1816, No. 26491. 34 Tame, “deficient in striking features,” variant definition in OED (Oxford,

“Tamara Talbot Rice, Rusyian Art (Pelican Book$, 1949), 207. 1933). Vol. XI.

257

The Historian One wonders if nobody grumbled; Cathcart in common with most foreigners overrated the strength and efficacy of Russian autocratic power. I n any case Vigel’ confirms that the laying of sidewalks was the first major project of Bethancourt’s Committee and was carried out with utmost seriousness. He looked back on the episode with a certain acerbic amusement - all that excitement over sidewalks! 36

Public welfare aiid social services were regarded in Russia, and throughout the Western world at this period, as primarily the responsibility of private charity and the churches. A “general welfare” fund, however, was part of the Petersburg city budget. The military governor-general reported to Alexander in 1824 that, over the past twenty years, an average of 45,000 rubles a year from city revenues had been used for general welfare. He defined this as laying sewers, dredging canals, paving squares, paving streets for the poor, and maintaining food reserves. The relative insignificance of this fund becomes apparent when one learns that the emperor cut it without apology to 25,000 rubles in 1824.37 City revenues at that time were probably about 1.4 million rubles. The population had reached 444,324. 38

But some services did expand as the capital grew. Almshouses and hospitals were built and maintained by the government, and the imperial treasury supplemented city revenues for such pur- poses. 39 The outstanding example of public service continued to be fire-fighting. In 1803 the first professional fire brigade was established, and residents were no longer required to serve in this capacity. Fire was a constant menace regardless of preventive efforts; there were an average of thirty-five to forty fires a year in the capital. *O

In cases of outright disaster the government assumed certain responsibilities for victims. Following the p-eat Moscow fire of 1812, Alexander directed his finance minister to disburse 1,000,000 rubles a year over a five-year period to aid in the rebuilding of the ancient city. I t is true that the city was to return this capital to the treasury, beginning ten years after the first disbursement, but without any interest payments.41 To aid flood victims of the

=Vigel’, Zapiski, V, 27. s?PSZ, XXXIX, 8 Jan. 1824, No. 29726. =Budget figures are from Ocherki istorii Leningrada, I, 610-61 1; population

estimates, ibid., 507. For Petrine legislation directing the Orthodox Church to support almshouses

and hospitals, see James Cracraft, T h e Church Xejorm of Peter the Great (Stanford, 1971), 90-96.

Ocherki istorii Leningrada, I, 625-626. ‘ lPSZ, XXXII, 14 Feb. 1813, No. 25337.

258

St. Petersburg famous inundation of St. Petersburg in 1824, the emperor allo- cated 1,000,000 rubles to a special relief committee. In this catastrophe 462 homes were destroyed and 3,681 damaged, so over half the buildings in the capital sustained damage. 42 Alexander directed the relief committee “to furnish refuge and sustenance for those deprived of shelter and food and to insure that grants from the designated capital be given only to those in the greatest need.” The government in this case was making outright grants without expectation of repayment. 43

Some initial glimmerings of concern about pollution appeared in connection with city planning. In addition to organizing garbage collection and providing “clean and healthy water,” Bethancourt’s Committee was ordered to designate zones in the capital that should be prohibited to industry.44 An 1821 imperial ukaz to the Senate was entitled “Concerning the prohibition in St. Petersburg of candle, tallow, or soap works and tanneries without special permission and approval of location by the mili- tary governor-general.” Such existing enterprises were labeled nuisances “because of their inconvenient locations and their effects on the air and water.” The ukaz complained that most of these facilities had been erected without government permis- sion. Any to be built in the future must be outside the center of the capital. 46 Unfortunately the government failed to prevent industry from developing in the residential areas on the peri- pheries of the monumental public sector. Gestures toward containing industrial pollution were woefully inadequate, but it is noteworthy that these gestures were made with Russian industry still only in its infancy.

The Aestlzetics of Planning St. Petersburg absorbed the prevalent architectural styles of

eighteenth-century Europe. Each succeeding monarch was eager to incorporate the latest ideas from the West. Peter introduced the baroque. His daughter, the Empress Elizabeth, was partial to rococo. Catherine the Great’s orientation to French culture developed her taste for the Palladian style, then favored by the French school of architecture. By the time of Alexander I, archaeological work in Greece and the writings of Johann Winckelmann had awakened European interest in classical Greek

4a Ocheiki istorii Leningrudu, I, 627. &PSZ, XXXIX, 11 Nov. 1824, No. 30113. &PSZ, XXXIII, 3 May 1816, No. 26253. &PSZ, XXXVII, 12 Sept. 1821, No. 28754.

259

The Historian architecture, so the crowning work in St. Petersburg was done in the Empire style. 46

The city as a whole developed in relation to two major elements, the Neva River and the three main radial streets that converged on the Admiralty at the bank of the river. Peter-Paul Fortress with its famous cathedral spire on the opposite side of the river was an important reference point. Certainly from the mid-eighteenth century, builders were aware of the relationships among these elements, and major projects were planned to enhance the magnificence of the riverfront and to preserve long vistas down the three radials. Eighteenth-century planners had dreamed of lining the radials with buildings of uniform facades, not deviating in alignment or height.47 This was recognized as impractical by Alexander’s time. Of the three radials, only Nevskii Prospect was vigorously developed, and it was lined with buildings of various shapes and sizes which were linked by a succession of squares.4S Perhaps the two outstanding such squares are the one in front of Kazan Cathedral and the one opening onto the Alexander Theater.

The other major element of the city, the Neva River, flows through the heart of the capital. On its left bank five great central squares were interlinked, beginning with the large semi- circular space between the Winter Palace and the General Staff Building, sweeping parallel to the Neva behind the Admiralty Building (this area now planted with trees), turning away from the river on the axis of Senate Square, and terminating south of St. Isaac’s Cathedral. The distance covered through these squares is about three-quarters o€ a mile, and the total area enclosed is about 100 acres.49 It was here that the army which had first turned back Napoleon paraded to greatest advantage. The three main radials break into this open space before converging on the Admiralty. With thcse long, straight streets, the spacious squares, and the great width of the river, onlookers are presented a t every turn with grand new vistas, often including several of the landmark structures: the Peter-Paul Fortress; the Stock Exchange; the Winter Palace; St. Isaac’s Cathedral; the Admiralty.

The most striking example of Alexander’s imposing his personal whim concerns the Admiralty Building. Adrian Zakharov by June 1818 had almost completed the new wing extending

George H. Hamilton, The A r t and Arclaiterture of Russia (Penguin Book,

47 A sixty-eight foot height limit was placed on buildings on Nevskii Prospect,

uI Egorov, The Architectural Planning of St. Petersburg, 96-98. “Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, VIII, bk. 1, 58.

1954), 205.

Blumenfeld, “Russian City Planning,” 30.

260

S t . Petersburg toward the Winter Palace. It was designed to line u p with the rear edge of the Winter Palace facing the Neva. But oae day Zakharov was suddenly called in for a personal interview with the emperor. Alexander pointed out from the royal chambers of the Winter Palace that the new Admiralty wing was blocking the view down the Ncva. In two weeks Zakharov submitted a revised plan, Alexander concurred, and the wing was pulled back sixty feet from its lormer position. The royal family still had their unobstructed view down-river, and the Admiralty ensemble fortunately retained harmonious proportions. 60

A significant factor in shaping St. Petersburg was the high status of architects at the time. The finest architects were not only niasters of design and engineering but were frequently outstanding artists in o&er fields. August Montferrand, trained primarily as a draftsman, came very close to beginning a career in porcelain design and ended being named chief architect for St. Isaac’s.b1 The great Carlo Rossi worked for a time in a glass and china factory. When he had won fame as a n architect, he often gave meticulous attention to interior decoration as well. Such was the case in his work on the Mikhailovskii Palace (now the State Russian Museum). He designed much of the furniture, several of the clocks, and personally chose the patterns of textiles, bronze and china ornaments, color schemes, decorative marbles and semi-precious stones.52 Such men were highly esteemed and well paid by the Russian government for their services.

The architect’s significant role has been intimated by that master observer of Russian society, Nikolai Gogol. Gogol begins his novel Dead Souls (written in the 1830s) with the protagonist meeting various officials of an obscure provincial capital. Among them is the town architect. Even in such a remote setting, Gogol suggests, it was deemed appropriate to have an architect in government employ. This is confirmed in an imperial ukaz of 1819 which assumed that there would be a “Provincial Architect” under each governor, to help inspect government buildings among other tasks.53 The army and navy both had their architects who were expected to oversee even such mundane operations as building barracks. 54 These men were not Montferrands or Rossis, but they did have some professional training that distinguished

60 Egorov, The Architectural Planning of S t . Petersburg, 118-119. Vigel’, Zapiski, V, 28.

sa Rice, Russian Art , 216-219. Carlo Rossi was an illegitimate son of the famous Italian ballerina, Gertrude Rossi. He was, however, raised in Russia and received his initial architectural training there under the architect, V. F. Brenna.

MPSZ, XXXV, 19 Mar. 1818, No. 27309, pt. 1. PSZ, XXVII, 19 Dec. 1802, No. 20557 and 24 June 1803, No. 20818.

261

?7 I he Historian them from engineers or master workmen. The Petersburg city council also had its architect who approved designs for private buildings and some of the river, canal, and bridge work.55 By the time the Ministry of Interior had taken over most responsi- bility for construction in the capital, it was authorized to set up a special Committee on Construction, and several members were apprenticed architects.j6 In official circles at least, it was taken for granted that all manner of building should be overseen by architects.

Several of Alexander 1’s architects tried to express i:i words the ultimate purpose 01 their activity. Carlo Rossi, the most outstanding of Petersburg architects, commented on one of his projects,

The dimensions of my proposed construction surpass those that the Romans considercd sufficient for their monuments. Should we hesitate to rival theni in magnificence? ‘The aim is not elaborate decoration but grandeur of form, noble proportions, permanency. This nionument must remain for an eternity. [This structure] must demonstrate that we have surpassed the skills of the ancients, and by its grandeur it must far excel everything that the Europeans of our era have created.57

After the Russian victory of 1812, Architect Stasov wrote that architecture must “transmit to posterity the taste, enlightenment, greatness, and glory of the State (Gosudarstva).” 5s The heightened sense of military glory felt by Russians because of the defeat of Napoleon was reflected in the large, open squares established in the center of the capital for military parades.

Rossi and Stasov reveal something of Russian nationalism’s content during this period. They characteristically emphasized rivalry with the Europeans and glorification of the Russian state. Nationalism at this time reflected the interests of the elite, that is, the high government oficials, wealthy landowners, the higher clergy, and favored publicists and professionals. Still, one can speak of “nationalism” because among the elite there was a new interest in Russian history, the Russian language, and even on occasion Russian folkways. All these aspects of the nation were seen as embodied in the twin institutions of autocracy and Orthodoxy (the Orthodox Church had long been a mainstay of the throne). I n 1834 the Minister of Education, Count S . S .

6 s P S Z , XXX, 1 Aug. 1808, No. 23196. PSZ, XXXII, 12 June 1812, No. 25137.

r71sfo?irn itisskogo ishus~lrm, T’JJI, bk. 1 , 129. ER Ibid., 167.

262

St. Petersburg Uvarov, wrote that “the people are unable to separate Fatherland from Tsar and see in Him their happiness, strength, and glory.” 69

The elite who were stirred by the events of 1812 tended to see the system which guarded their privileges as vindicated. The Russian state had succeeded where other states had failed. T h e essence of the Russian state was autocracy, so the role of the autocrat must be preserved, even strengthened, and autocracy was the single most important symbol of the nation. This complex of ideas was clarified in the succeeding reign and was epitomized in Uvarov’s famous slogan, “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, National- ity.” Go

St. Petersburg thus acquired its final form through a self- conscious attempt to glorify the nation which was identified with the autocracy. From the aesthetic point of view this effort was a great success. Architects had responded enthusiastically to a unique opportunity. They created a lasting monument to the Russian autocratic state.

m Prom an article in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, quoted by Edward C. Thaden, Conservntivc Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Seattle, 1964), 20.

Bo Developing Russian nationalism is discussed by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, Nicholas I and Oficial Nationality in Russia, 1825-1855 (Berkeley and Los Angela, 1959). Although Riasanovsky and Thaden deal primarily with nationalism after Alexander I, they do give some consideration to nationalist thinking in his time.

263