WI: Tatlin's Tower gets built?

[Dorozhand]

Let's say we butterfly Stalin and keep Avante-Garde at the forefront of Soviet architecture. Then, some time in the 20's or 30's, Tatlin's Tower, a triumph of futurism and communism, is constructed in Moscow in conjunction with a massive program to transform the city's character to reflect the people's revolution.

 

[Michel Van]

For those not knowing what we talking about

a 400 meter high symbol of modernity.
it's combination of Tower and Buildings
inside the twin helix are from down to top
Cube with a venue for lectures, conferences and legislative meetings (that cube rotate once a year)
above is a Pyramid for executive activities (what rotate once a month)
on that a cylinder, which was to house an information centre, issuing news bulletins and manifestos via telegraph, radio and loudspeaker ( one rotation once a day)
those Three elements serve as a form of Clock
At the top, there would be a hemisphere for radio equipment.
also is the Tatlin's Tower equipped with gigantic open-air screen on the cylinder, and a further projector which would be able to cast messages across the clouds on any overcast day

 

[Delta Force]

Wasn't it supposed to have consumed a massive amount of Soviet steel production? Constructing it would certainly harm Soviet industrialization and infrastructure development efforts and likely lead to a weaker Soviet army in the 1930s.

 

[Narnia]

Wasn't it supposed to have consumed a massive amount of Soviet steel production? Constructing it would certainly harm Soviet industrialization and infrastructure development efforts and likely lead to a weaker Soviet army in the 1930s.

Pretty much this. Building a giant stupid tower of twisted metal will just waste resources. People can't even live or work in it, unlike Stalin's planned super-buildings that actually had practical uses.

 

[Curiousone]

Wasn't it supposed to have consumed a massive amount of Soviet steel production? Constructing it would certainly harm Soviet industrialization and infrastructure development efforts and likely lead to a weaker Soviet army in the 1930s.

The Eiffel Tower weights very close to 10,000 tonnes as a comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#Background
"In 1920, industrial production had been 13% and agricultural production 20% of the 1913 figures"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1892–1917)#The_Stolypin_and_Kokovtsov_governments
"By 1914 Russian steel production equaled that of France and Austria–Hungary"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steel_industry_(1850–1970)#19th_century_trends
"France, Belgium, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, combined, went from 2.2 million tons in 1870 to 14.1 million tons in 1913, on the eve of the World War"


So it's maybe 3% of a years production in the destruction after the war & revolution. Not too much. Just have them lay the foundations in the revolutionary period, finish it by the 30's when they really industrialized.

If it doesn't get destroyed by the Germans in the war it'll be a Russian Icon, appearing on postage stamps & Soviet propaganda. Tourists will get their photograph taken next to it. Never mind that it's not much use as a government building.

Pity they hadn't.

 

[Dorozhand]

Pretty much this. Building a giant stupid tower of twisted metal will just waste resources. People can't even live or work in it, unlike Stalin's planned super-buildings that actually had practical uses.

Actually, people could work in it. It would have been a nerve center of Soviet government, economics, and the dissemination of revolutionary materials. It would have been a symbol of the proletarian society, a rejection of crusty European tradition and oppression, and the beginning of a new age of human civilization at the centre of the world revolution.

It was a brilliantly designed and envisioned architectural marvel.

 

[Curiousone]

http://www.tatlinstowerandtheworld.net/

People building it. In pieces, across the world.

 

[Curiousone]

And more eloquently, this

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com.au/2006/03/tatlins-tower.html

 

[Dorozhand]

The Eiffel Tower weights very close to 10,000 tonnes as a comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#Background
"In 1920, industrial production had been 13% and agricultural production 20% of the 1913 figures"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1892–1917)#The_Stolypin_and_Kokovtsov_governments
"By 1914 Russian steel production equaled that of France and Austria–Hungary"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steel_industry_(1850–1970)#19th_century_trends
"France, Belgium, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, combined, went from 2.2 million tons in 1870 to 14.1 million tons in 1913, on the eve of the World War"


So it's maybe 3% of a years production in the destruction after the war & revolution. Not too much. Just have them lay the foundations in the revolutionary period, finish it by the 30's when they really industrialized.

If it doesn't get destroyed by the Germans in the war it'll be a Russian Icon, appearing on postage stamps & Soviet propaganda. Tourists will get their photograph taken next to it. Never mind that it's not much use as a government building.

Pity they hadn't.

A Russian icon? It'll be at the centre of the world proletarian revolution. It'll function as a state and party building and a production centre of ideological material, as well as a concept construction to set example for the beginning of the transformation of the world's cities.

It won't be destroyed by the Germans because the Germans won't be getting anywhere near Moscow. Without Stalin, the Red Army will be under the competent leadership of Tukhachevsky, Voroshilov, et al

If and when the Germans come in, the Red Army will pull back to defensive lines and laugh as the German offensive stalls in a bloody mess as the soldiers begin to freeze to death in the winter cold.

 

[Simon]

Actually, people could work in it. It would have been a nerve center of Soviet government, economics, and the dissemination of revolutionary materials. It would have been a symbol of the proletarian society, a rejection of crusty European tradition and oppression, and the beginning of a new age of human civilization at the centre of the world revolution.

It was a brilliantly designed and envisioned architectural marvel.

And yet still ugly as fuck* and horribly inefficient. Modern architecture can actually be quite good, parts however is just glass and steel wankery to provide some pretentious twerp in a black turtleneck the excuse to prate on about how clever they and their design are.

*Beauty of course being a mostly a subjective affair.

 

[Dorozhand]

And yet still ugly as fuck* and horribly inefficient. Modern architecture can actually be quite good, parts however is just glass and steel wankery to provide some pretentious twerp in a black turtleneck the excuse to prate on about how clever they and their design are.

*Beauty of course being a mostly a subjective affair.

I used to think it was, but after looking at the design more closely, and the way it uses its geometry and balance to convey its purpose and symbolism, I gradually fell in love with it. It might not look nice surrounded by, say, greco-roman architecture, but imagine a whole city of buildings planned in its image. It represents the Russian Revolution as it should have been: the building up of the new proletarian society. The creation of an avante-garde infrastructure.

 

[Alex Richards]

Wasn't it supposed to rotate or something? And it was planned for St. Petersburg not Moscow, so at much greater risk in an alt-WWII.

In any case, it would stick out like hell in St. Petersburg or Moscow, and I have my doubts about whether you could even build it in Petersburg given the lack of bedrock.

In general, if we're assuming that this is going ahead with enough support to actually build it (unlike the Palace of the Soviets), then obviously something else isn't being built- either industry, social housing, schools etc. or some combination of the three. Assuming it survives, I think it's far more likely to be seen as a white elephant symbolising a government more interested in grand plans and idealistic schemes than in actually running the country.

 

[Simon]

There's also the slight problem of a lot of people apparently thinking that it would have been physically unbuildable, or would have fallen over had it been built, what with Tatlin being an artist and not an engineer or architect.

 

[Curiousone]

And yet still ugly as fuck* and horribly inefficient. Modern architecture can actually be quite good, parts however is just glass and steel wankery to provide some pretentious twerp in a black turtleneck the excuse to prate on about how clever they and their design are.

*Beauty of course being a mostly a subjective affair.

Many people thought the same about the Eiffel tower.

 

[Curiousone]

There's also the slight problem of a lot of people apparently thinking that it would have been physically unbuildable, or would have fallen over had it been built, what with Tatlin being an artist and not an engineer or architect.

Architect students in the Universities around me say a lot of it is them drawing the designs, structural engineers figuring out the rest. It's a metal grid, given the existence of large satellite dishes, radio towers I'm sure there's some way of making it happen.

 

[Curiousone]

Wasn't it supposed to rotate or something? And it was planned for St. Petersburg not Moscow, so at much greater risk in an alt-WWII.

...

Yes. The Soviets can at least claim that the structure represents continuing action, building the future anew so it can be made and re-made by the labours of the proletariat etc. Would kind of be a cool point in an ATL, I can see the Luftwaffe videoing it from the air as they bombed it, it collapsing in a propaganda film like the Towers in NYC backdropped by flames and Nazi ranting.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Would have made an awesome amusement park ride... Build it on the banks of the Neva -----watersliiiiiide!!!!!