LTŠiame straipsnyje į vadinamuosius Mokslininkų namus žvelgiu kaip į „stalininės“ Sovietų Sąjungos architektūros, planavimo, socialinės inžinerijos ir būsto politikos pavyzdį. Per atvejo studiją bandau atskleisti ir sovietinių lietuviškų pokario vizijų ir realybės prieštaras Vilniuje, kurios architektūroje reiškėsi taip pat kaip ir daugelyje kitų sričių. Šiame tyrime buvo svarbu palyginti dvi pokariu koegzistavusias realybes, kurios iš tiesų stipriai viena nuo kitos skyrėsi – oficialiųjų vizijų, planų propagandos sluoksnį bei sudėtingą pirmojo pokario dešimtmečio tikrovę, kurioje buvo bandoma oficialiuosius planus realizuoti. Būtent architektūra ir erdvės išplanavimas bei paskirstymas čia atskleidžia daug socialinio gyvenimo aspektų, kurie plėtojosi tiek šiame name, tiek ir visoje sistemoje. Mokslininkų namai suvokiami kaip tam tikras Vilniaus pokario realybės mikromodelis. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Pokaris; Architektūra; Socialinė tvarka; Mikromodelis; Rezidencinė architektūra; Oficialiosios vizijos; Elitinis būstas; Komunalinis būstas; Post-war; Micromodel; Social order; Residential architecture; Official planning; Elite housing; Communal housing.
ENIn this article the author researches the Scientists House in Vilnius as a case study of Stalinist architecture, planning, social engineering and residential politics. The analysis of this post-war elite housing in Vilnius demonstrates significant contradictions between Lithuanian Soviet post-war official visions and their implementation. Those contradictions manifest themselves in the architecture of the period as well as in other spheres of life. This research looks at those two very different realities – the reality of the official planning and the reality of the actual existence. The efforts of implementing the official plans took place in the complicated conditions of the Soviet post-war period. Thus, the contradictory layers of the visionary planning and its actual implementation coexisted in this one particular building. Its architecture, planning and distribution of space allows one to conceive many aspects of the period’s social life that were cultivated in this building, as well as in a broader reality. In this article the Scientist House is perceived as a certain micromodel for the life in post-war Vilnius. On the one hand, this exclusive house, built according to the 1946 decree of the Soviet Council of Ministers, was designed to accommodate distinguished Lithuanian scientists. The building was designed between 1947 and 1950, and inaugurated in 1951 by a Leningrad architect of Italian origins Giovanni Rippa-Angioletto as a representative of elite housing estate. It had its prototypes in Moscow, Leningrad, as well as its analogues in Tallinn, Minsk, and other Soviet capitals. On the other hand, almost immediately after the building was completed, it was transformed and adapted to the post-war Vilnius reality, dominated by sharp economic deficiency and communal dwelling.One of the themes of this article is dealing with efforts to explain the coexistences of those immense paradoxes – how could a family of academics receive an apartment of 200 square metres at the time when the planning norm of living space in the period’s Soviet Vilnius was 6.2 square metres per person? How did these privileges work? And what role did this building play in the post-war reconstruction plans of the centre of Vilnius? A glance at the real distribution of space in the Scientists House mirrors the social position of the scientists or other cultural workers who lived in the building. Distinguished scientists or the ones actively involved in Soviet propaganda belonged to the new Soviet nomenklatura. They had better access to these prestigious apartments and living environment that were considered very exclusive in comparison to the average Vilnius housing of the period. However, a closer analysis of the communal life in this tenement building reveals a far more complex image of the period’s social relations. These relations can be explained by the real social and economic needs of the place and period rather than by the exclusive argument of social positions, privileges and luxury. [From the publication]