«Центр — периферия»: взаимодействие свердловских и московских архитекторов в период советского модернизма в 1960—1980-е гг.
In this paper, the relationship between the center and the periphery and the participation of Moscow architects in the issues of Sverdlovsk city planning in the 1960—1980s are analyzed on the example of the Soviet modernism architecture of Sverdlovsk. The interference of metropolitan architects is considered as the example of the Soviet colonial practices in the regions of the former RSFSR. The paper establishes that by the 1970—1980s the strong local architectural community was formed in Sverdlovsk. The architectural education has been already founded by K. T. Babykin in the 1930s. In 1967 his pupil N. S. Alferov became a Head of the Ural branch of the Moscow Architectural Institute, which was the first Institute’s branch outside Moscow, highlighting importance and exclusiveness of architectural education in the Urals. In 1972 the Ural branch was transformed into the independent Sverdlovsk Architectural Institute. At the same time the paper strengthens the importance of the local project institute, which became more independent from metropolitan project institute by the 1970s. Thus, the paper concludes that there were no staff shortages among architects in Sverdlovsk. On the contrary, the paper provides archival information about negative attitude of Sverdlovsk architects towards Moscow colleagues. Critics often pointed out that they had to get permissions from Moscow to construct buildings and that they were controlled by the centre. Sverdlovsk architects, in turn, criticized projects made by Moscow architects and city planners because they ignored local features of the territory. This situation can be explained by the hierarchical system of the Soviet project institutes and the accountability of Sverdlovsk architects to Moscow. The paper points out that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union separatist movements were rising in the former Sverdlovsk, which got its historical name Yekaterinburg back in 1991, and the issue of reginal identity of the Urals became vital. Thus, the paper concludes that the commitments of Sverdlovsk architects to get out of control of Moscow and be fully responsible for the city planning themselves in the last Soviet decades can be extrapolated to the relationship between modern Sverdlovsk Oblast and the federal government.