Guided by modernism: Popularizing Soviet architecture of the 1950s–1980s — the who, how, and why

This article examines the practices of popularizing Soviet modernist architecture (1950s–1980s) through the phenomenon of author-led tours. The study’s relevance stems from the growing public interest in this architectural legacy, coupled with escalating threats to its preservation. The aim is not to evaluate the effectiveness of these practices but to analyze the motivations, shared traits, and evolving perspectives of popularizers who operate outside any formal movement. Methodologically, the research is based on a qualitative analysis of transcripts from in-depth interviews with thirteen experienced guides specializing in Soviet modernism. A key methodological approach involved shifting the focus from individual “personas” to a “montage of statements”, identifying recurring themes across the interviews. The authors (and interviewers) — architectural historians with guiding experience themselves — adopt a reflexive position, treating their interviewees as both research subjects and intellectual co-authors. The analysis identified and systematized seven core metaphorical “pathways” through which the guides’ reflections can be conceptualized: tours as a journey into an imagined space; as a pathway for dialogue and exchange of opinions; as a route to acceptance and therapeutic reconciliation with the modernist environment; as a path to knowledge; as a means of community-building; as a path to identity, formed by negotiating the relationship between local context and international style; and finally, as a potential path to heritage preservation — or a refusal to assume this role. This article offers an internal view of the evolution of excursion practices and their role in the modern culture of fascination with Soviet Modernism. The study culminates in a polyphonic portrait of a community in a state of creative and intellectual flux. It shows how these practices serve not only to construct heritage narratives and community identity but also to develop a cooperative effort aimed at the preservation of Modernism. Ultimately, the article argues that within this context “retrotopia” operates not just as a nostalgic escape from reality but also as an instrument for critiquing contemporary urban planning.

1. Bronovitskaya, A., Malinin, N. (2016). Moscow: Architecture of Soviet Modernism, 1955–1991. Handbook. Moscow: Garage Museum of Contemporary Art.

2. Danilov, V. V. (2022). The image of ‘Soviet modernism’ in the architectural critical discourse of ‘Project Russia’ magazine in the 1990s”. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin, “Literary Theory, Linguistics, Cultural Studies”, 2022(7, part 2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2022-7-185-198. (In Russian).

3. Eremeeva, A. N. Potential of Soviet architectural modernism: the practices of mastering. In I. I. Gorlova (Ed.). The Cultural Heritage of the North Caucasus as a Resource for Interethnic Harmony. Collection of Scientific Articles Based on the Results of the IX International Scientific Forum, 115–127. Moscow: Institut Nasledija. (In Russian).

4. Heatherly, O. (2019). Militant modernism: a defence of modernism against its defenders. Moscow: Kuchkovo Pole. (In Russian).

5. Kazakova, O. (2022). On the problems and prospects of studying the architecture of Soviet modernism in the postcolonial era. New Literary Observer, 2022(178), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.53953/08696365_2022_178_6_320. (In Russian).