Visualization of pre-revolutionary projects of the Moscow metro

Polishchuk Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0000-0002-5448-3859 Senior Lecturer, Department of Russian History, State Academic University for Humanities 125080, Russia, Moscow, Volokolamsk str., 9 bloubek@yandex.ru

Despite the fact that the Moscow Metro opened only in 1935, the idea of building high-speed off-street transport in the city arose long before that.

Not all metro construction projects were visualized, since the authors of the pre-revolutionary plans tried to solve, first of all, the transport problem (albeit sometimes in the form of an outright utopia), and not an aesthetic or ideological one. Many projects did not even reach the discussion by the city authorities.

The problem of visualization of the Moscow metro in paintings and graphics has been studied only in fragments. It is worth noting the works of O. V. Kostina ^[5], N. P. Beschastnov and E. N. Dergileva ^[3], O. N. Filippova ^[17], A.V. Skizhali-Weiss ^[15], as well as a number of collective works ^{[6],[7],[8],[9],[16]}. Only the article by A. V. Skizhali-Weiss examines works created before 1917, while other authors analyze works of the Soviet and post-Soviet period.

Before proceeding to the review of the pictorial material, it makes sense to briefly consider the main construction projects of the Moscow metro.

In 1872, the first line of the horse-drawn railway (konki) was opened in Moscow — the prototype of the tram. In 1898, the first electric trams appeared in Moscow. By 1911, the entire network had been electrified. It was the horse-drawn tram and tram that were the main mode of transport until the 1930s.

In 1875, railway engineer V. A. Titov proposed to lay an underground tunnel from Kursky railway station to Kitay-Gorod ^{[14, p. 75]}. This proposal can be considered the first attempt to solve Moscow's transport problem using the metro. The project, if it existed, has not been discovered ^{[14, p. 75]}.

"In the 1890s, the design of a district railway began, which could free the city from transit traffic" ^{[11, p. 40]}. It is known about the project of the Ryazan-Ural Railway Society, which involved the construction of an urban railway with a tunnel in the city center between Trubnaya Square and Ilyinka Street ^{[11, p. 40]}. The details of this project are also unknown.

In 1897, engineer A. I. Antonovich, who managed the joint-stock company of the Moscow-Kazan Railway, presented a project, the main purpose of which was the transportation of goods, not passengers ^{[11, p. 40]}. The project involved the construction of a ring road and radial lines to the city center. The project was visualized only in the form of a map, which is purely technical in nature ^{[11, p. 41]}.

It is worth noting that in 1902-1907 the Small Ring of the Moscow Railway (MK MZhD) was built. This project was mainly used for cargo transportation, although passenger transportation along the ring was also carried out. Passenger traffic was small, and in 1934 the movement of passenger trains was stopped altogether. The main problem was the location of the Small Ring: it actually took place outside the city. It was only in 1917 that the border of the Small Ring became the new administrative border of Moscow. However, despite the presence of a transport function, this project cannot be called a subway.

In 1902, A. I. Antonovich, N. I. Golinevich and N. P. Dmitriev published their project in the form of a book "Moscow City Railway. (Metropolitan)" ^[1]. The project provided for the construction of four radial lines and a ring line. The authorities rejected the offer. This project is interesting because for the first time the metro proposed for construction was depicted not just as a diagram on a map of Moscow, although it is also published in a book, but also illustrated.

These illustrations are technical in nature (the authors themselves call them drawings), however, they allow us to understand how the future subway should look like. All illustrations are signed by three autographs of the authors of the project, so it is impossible to accurately establish authorship. D. Neutatz believes that "the illustrations are made in the form of engravings on steel" ^{[11, p. 40]}. The most likely technique used by the authors is etching.

The project provided for the construction of four radii, a new ring road and the Central Station in the Alexander Garden area. The central station was planned to be three-level: trains were to run on the upper and lower (underground) levels, and the middle level served as an interchange between the other two [Fig. 1].

Fig. 1. A. I. Antonovich, N. I. Golinevich, N. P. Dmitriev. The project of the Moscow City Railway (Metro). The central station.1902

The authors clearly did not attach much importance to the architecture of the future station: it is depicted extremely schematically. The building is typical of the architectural eclecticism of the late XIX – early XX centuries: low turrets, windows in the form of semicircles, restrained facade decor. This project was not commissioned, but was the initiative of the engineers themselves, so the authors were not interested in a detailed study of the architectural image of the future station.

It is also worth saying that as financing it was proposed only to sell bonds on foreign markets ^{[11, p. 43]}. The authors did not represent the interests of specific investors and did not defend their project to the authorities and the public, so there was no need for architectural sketches themselves.

The authors of the project proposed to build a ring line mainly along embankments and overpasses, and radial lines in tunnels, therefore both planning solutions are illustrated. The authors also originally proposed to combine the passenger function with the transportation of goods: "Underground freight stations were planned in different places of the city, which came into operation at night when passenger traffic was falling" ^{[11, p. 44]}. The design of the freight station was also illustrated [Fig. 2].

Fig. 2. A. I. Antonovich, N. I. Golinevich, N. P. Dmitriev. The project of the Moscow City Railway (Metro). A freight station. 1902

An underground passenger station was proposed for construction with an above-ground lobby, from which passengers descended to the platform via a spiral staircase [Fig. 3]. The lobby was built into the building and had minimal decor.

Fig. 3. A. I. Antonovich, N. I. Golinevich, N. P. Dmitriev. The project of the Moscow City Railway (Metro). The design of the passenger station in 1902

Also in 1902, engineers P. I. Balinsky and E. K. Knorre presented their project. The authors proposed the construction of two ring lines under the Boulevard and Garden Rings, the Central Station south of St. Basil's Cathedral on Vasilyevsky Descent and radial lines. The subway was supposed to be mostly aboveground. The authors compared Moscow with New York, Paris, London and Berlin, where there were already subways ^{[11, p. 40]}.

This project was vigorously discussed in the city Duma and the press, causing a flurry of criticism ^{[11, pp. 49-50]}. There were many reasons for this. The authors were going to get a tram into their company, which brought large revenues to the city budget; technical and economic calculations were not presented by the authors; foreign capitalists were behind the project, whose interests were represented by the authors ^{[11, p. 46]}; the project provided for the demolition of a huge number of buildings in the city, including 10 temples.

The ease with which P. I. Balinsky actually proposed the restructuring of Moscow and the demolition of temples for the construction of utilitarian transport, ideologically makes this project related to the real restructuring of the city already in Soviet times. The Red Gate and Sukharev Tower were also demolished in order to solve transport problems, but similar ideas also arose in pre-revolutionary times and were associated with the emergence of an industrial society and technological progress. The author thanks Ph.D. G. A. Filatov, who drew attention to this fact during the discussion at the conference "The image of the other in Modern and Modern history within the framework of a visual turn", which was held at the IVI RAS on 08/24/2023.

The position of researcher I. N. Shumeiko is noteworthy, who calls the project "Balinsky's Scam" and believes that the authors, using a corruption scheme, only tried to appropriate the proceeds from the city tram ^{[18, pp. 171-200]}. As a result of the political struggle around the project, supporters of its cancellation, led by V. M. Golitsyn, who then held the post of mayor of Moscow, won ^{[10, p. 208]}.

Despite the fact that the project of P. I. Balinsky and E. K. Knorre turned out to be controversial and was rejected by the authorities, the Moscow Metro was visualized for the first time in the form of works of art.

"On September 18, 1902, Balinsky presented his project with great fanfare in the hall of the City Duma, decorated with paintings around the perimeter, where one could admire the views of the city with the future railway line" ^{[11, p. 46]}. We are talking about watercolors (strictly speaking, the works are made in mixed media, although the main technique is, of course, watercolor) by the artist Nikolai Nikolaevich Karazin (1842-1909).

Nikolai Karazin is a battle artist, watercolorist, illustrator. V. V. Sadoven rightly notes that the artist belongs to the Russian realistic school of the XIX century ^{[13, p. 305]}. Nikolai Karazin received an order from P. I. Balinsky to illustrate the Moscow Metro project.

Nothing is known about the circumstances of this order, but in the same year P. I. Balinsky, together with American entrepreneur Merry A. Werner, already proposed a similar metro project for St. Petersburg ^{[11, p. 45]}. Nikolai Karazin was also one of the illustrators of the project [Fig. 4].

Fig. 4. N. N. Karazin. The flyover at Znamenskaya Square. Paper / watercolor, ink. 1902 GMI St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg

Despite the fact that the artist was famous (in 1907 he was awarded the title of academician of the Imperial Academy of Arts), there is evidence that the Karazin family was not prosperous at the beginning of the 20th century. The granddaughter of the artist T. F. Barykov describes the family's situation as follows: "And even earlier, in 1906-1907, due to the difficult financial situation, some of the things and books were sold. Money was needed for the treatment of my grandfather..." [Cit. according to 2, p. 82]. Most of the artist's property, including books and paintings, was sold under the hammer ^{[19, p. 224]}. These facts indirectly indicate that custom-made work was financially important for the artist's family.

Apparently, for Nikolai Karazin, this order was quite ordinary, he was already well known as an illustrator of books, postcards, and porcelain. At the same time, for the authors of the metro project, the artist's big name, given the actual lack of technical documentation and obvious commercial interest, was an additional argument in protecting the project before the authorities.

It is not known for certain how many watercolors were created in total. To date, we can talk about three jobs. Only two have been preserved [Fig. 5, 6], another one is known from a photocopy [Fig. 7] made at the same time.

Fig. 5. N. N. Karazin. The overpass and the central station of the metro. Moskvoretsky Bridge (designed by engineers P.I. Balinsky and E.K. Knorre). Paper on cardboard / watercolor, whitewash, ink, pen, graphite pencil. 47.5 x 82 cm. 1902 Moscow Museum

Fig. 6. N. N. Karazin. The overpass and the central station of the metro. Red Square (designed by engineers P.I. Balinsky and E.K. Knorre). Paper on cardboard / watercolor, whitewash, ink, pen. 47.5 x 82.5 cm. 1902 Moscow Museum

Fig. 7. N. N. Karazin. View of the Subway from the side of the Bolshoy Kamenny Bridge. Paper / photocopy. 28 x 48 cm. 1902 Moscow Metro

Despite the fact that the works were intended to illustrate the transport project, it can be stated that Nikolai Karazin managed to create truly artistic works.

If we compare these works with the already mentioned illustration for the St. Petersburg Metro project [Fig. 4], which was created earlier, but in the same 1902, we can see that it is much more schematic. The figures of people are motionless, although they are shown in dynamics. The surrounding buildings are also depicted differently: the buildings of St. Petersburg, unlike those in Moscow, look like decorations for an overpass and a metro station.

Nikolai Karazin is a strict realist, but this order required him to depict futurological (which is completely unusual for the artist's work) landscapes of Moscow with an already built subway. The artist solved the problem by embedding new transport into the existing urban fabric.

Apart from the metro itself, there is nothing new in the life and architecture of Moscow. Despite the fact that projects like the one proposed by P. I. Balinsky have been implemented for years, and sometimes decades, for the artist it is still the same Moscow of the early 20th century with carts, cabs, small boats on the river.

The dimensions of the two original works are relatively large, given that the main technique is watercolor. This is due to the fact that the works were originally created to present the project to the audience. Nikolai Karazin rarely created large-size oil paintings on canvas, preferring chamber works in watercolor and gouache techniques. This explains the choice of equipment for this order.

It should be noted that this circumstance also affects the unpopularity of Nikolai Karazin's work in our time: for the national artistic tradition, scale is more characteristic than intimacy. A similar pattern has already been noted by E. V. Paston in the context of the work of the miniaturist I. P. Pokhitonov ^{[12, p. 6]}.

In two original works [Fig. 5, 6], the Central Station is visible, although it is shown in different ways: in the first work [Fig. 5] it is the center of the composition, and in the second [Fig. 6] it is barely noticeable behind St. Basil's Cathedral. The image of the Central Station is no coincidence — it was the kind of structure that was easy to present, because the subway was planned mainly as an overpass.

The station is decorated with thin turrets, which makes it similar to the station according to the already mentioned project of A. I. Antonovich, N. I. Golinevich N. P. Dmitriev. The shape of the turrets refers to the Beklemishevskaya Tower of the Moscow Kremlin, which is located next to the train station. The bridge over the Moskva River was supposed to be two-level [Fig. 5], and the overpass at the Kremlin wall was already one-level [Fig. 6].

The most impressive is a watercolor depicting the Red Square and the subway overpass [Fig. 6]. The building is covered with a gray haze, either from a steam locomotive pulling subway cars, or from fog. The city looks lively, with an abundance of horse-drawn carriages. The overpass along the Kremlin Wall looks unusual, especially when viewed from today. A pedestrian space with lighting was planned under the overpass. The illumination and the thin and elegant overpass are an artistic invention of Karazin. In reality, such spaces look much more bulky and repulsive.

For a contemporary artist, this is still the same Moscow, which the project is not trying to transform. On the contrary, the metro itself strives to become part of the urban landscape.

As already mentioned, another watercolor is known from a photocopy [Fig. 7]. The size of the photocopy is presumably smaller than the size of the original. The photocopy comes from the collection of the Scientific and Technical Library of the St. Petersburg State University of Railways of Emperor Alexander I. The University is the successor to the pre-revolutionary Institute of Railway Engineers. The photocopy was presented to the Moscow Metro in 2015 in honor of its 80th anniversary. The location of the original is unknown.

In this work, we can see the subway overpass and the station located on this overpass. The station is located next to a Large Stone Bridge, then the overpass makes a turn and goes along the Kremlin Wall. The overpass is again depicted as an elegant and thin line, which in reality it could not be. It is noticeable from the photocopy that the work was done in the same manner as the watercolors known from the originals.

"Rejecting the Knorre and Balinsky project in 1903, the Moscow City Duma referred to the fact that the needs of the capital's population would be met by expanding the tram network..." ^{[11, pp. 50-51]}. However, by 1911, the authorities recognized that the possibilities of expanding tram lines in the city center had been exhausted. For the first time, the City Duma initiated discussions on the construction of a metro in Moscow.

The projects of engineer K. K. Ruin (1911), a new project by E. K. Knorre (1912), Ya. I. Utin, A. I. Vyshnegradsky, A. I. Guchkov, A. I. Gennerat and G. D. Hoff (1913) are known ^{[11, pp. 52-57]}. The City Duma was working on its own project. In 1913, the authorities stated that the city needed a subway. However, all the projects remained on paper, none of them were visualized.

In 1914, by order of the Einem company, which was one of the largest confectionery manufacturers at that time, the A. A. Levenson Cursive Printing Company published a series of postcards "Moscow of the Future". The postcards were enclosed in a box of chocolates with the same name. The project was exclusively commercial, unoriginal and typical for advertising companies of that time ^{[4, p. 101]}. In 1900, the German confectionery company Theodor Hildebrand and Son already invested postcards of the series "Germany in 2000" in packages with their products. Also in 1900-1910, a series "France in the XXI century" was released in France, consisting of 87 cards enclosed in cigarette and cigarette boxes.

The author of the sketches for the postcards cannot be identified at the moment. On the reverse of each postcard there is a description of the image.

A total of 8 postcards were released in the series. They demonstrate how Moscow should look in the XXIII century. The author is hardly serious: the future appears to him as a cloudless and bright holiday. However, many trends in the development of megacities are predicted correctly: the growth of high-rise construction, an increase in the number of citizens, mass motorization.

The images can be safely attributed to the fantasy genre, which is commonly called "retrofuturism": the future has come far for a contemporary, but technological progress has stopped. Clothing from the beginning of the XX century, open-type fire trucks, mounted troops. Retrofuturism, as a model of artistic forecasting, is typical of the ideas of that time about the future.

"The core of the entire project forecast of 1914 can be called the sensational transport problem of our days, which already at that time came under the close attention of the project developers" ^{[15, pp. 34-35]}. Airships, trains, cars, aerosani — the space of the city is literally crowded with various types of transport. The author uses either a high point of view or a low one, invariably focusing the viewer's attention on traffic and human flows. Actually, the subway or transport similar to it is found on five postcards.

The first postcard [Fig. 8] depicts the "Central Station of air and land communication routes". The Central Station featured in the projects of A. I. Antonovich and P. I. Balinsky and was located next to the Kremlin. Considering that P. I. Balinsky's project was vigorously discussed in the press, the author of the sketches for these postcards was clearly familiar with these plans.

Figure 8. Unknown artist. The central station of air and land routes. Traffic at the train station. A postcard from the "Moscow of the Future" series. T-va Einem edition. 9×13.6 cm. 1914 Moscow Museum

It is difficult to say exactly where the Central Station should have been located, but Yaroslavsky Railway Station is visible next to it (albeit on a much smaller scale). Therefore, the station had to be located near Kalanchevskaya Square (now Komsomolskaya Square), then the largest transport hub in the city.

This location betrays the author's more traditional thinking than A. I. Antonovich and P. I. Balinsky: The Central Station, although it is a new building, is connected to the existing traffic flow. The shape of the station also echoes the already mentioned works by Nikolai Karazin.

For trains, the author has provided both underground and overpass traffic. There are a huge number of tunnels on the ground for movement, which come to the surface. Trains move along the trestles, the supports of which are visible only in the distance, both on rails and with the help of a suspension mechanism. Such systems are commonly referred to as monorails (regardless of the location of the rail — top or bottom). By the beginning of the XX century. they already existed. For a long time, the monorail has been associated with the transport of the future. However, due to technical features, systems of this type are still rarely used today.

The contrast between the transport of the future and the foreground of work with pre-revolutionary trams and cars is striking.

The second postcard [Fig. 9] depicts the Kremlin and the Moskvoretsky Bridge. The two types of trains already mentioned are moving along the overpasses. An overpass with a classic rail train passes through a multi-storey building in Zaryadye. The "suspended airway carriage" is similar to a pre-revolutionary tram.

Fig. 9. Unknown artist. Moskvoretsky Bridge. A postcard from the "Moscow of the Future" series. T-va Einem edition. 9×13.6 cm. 1914 Moscow Museum

The following postcard [Fig. 10] is intended to show the Theater Square. The Bolshoi Theatre is visually overwhelmed by new skyscrapers. A train overpass passes through one of them. There is another overpass in the distance.

Fig. 10. Unknown artist. Theatre Square. A postcard from the "Moscow of the Future" series. T-va Einem edition. 9×13.6 cm. 1914 Moscow Museum

The postcard with the image of the Red Square is similar to the previous one [Fig. 11]. The monument to Minin and Pozharsky and the building of the Historical Museum are adjacent to the monorail overpass passing through the building.

Fig. 11. Unknown artist. The Red Square. A postcard from the "Moscow of the Future" series. T-va Einem edition. 9×13.6 cm. 1914 Moscow Museum

The last of the postcards [Fig. 12] depicts Lubyanka Square. "Long carriages of the Moscow Metro fly out from under the bridge square, which we only talked about in 1914..." says the inscription on the back of the postcard, the author uses the term "metro" for the first time. The author does not call the above-mentioned overpass transport that way: the metro seems to the artist, first of all, to be an underground transport, albeit sometimes coming to the surface. The author separates the flyover roads from the subway, despite the fact that P. I. Balinsky's project, as already mentioned, assumed mainly the construction of overpasses.

Fig. 12. Unknown artist. Lubyanka Square. A postcard from the "Moscow of the Future" series. T-va Einem edition. 9×13.6 cm. 1914 Moscow Museum

The artist clearly did not have a clear futurological concept of transport, although four levels of transport infrastructure are distinguished: underground, ground, aboveground and air ^{[15, p. 35]}.

There is a metro station under the pavement, and above it there is a green sign with the name of the station, which refers us to the pavilions of the Paris metro by Hector Guimard.

The First World War and the revolutionary events in Russia pushed the problem of metro construction in Moscow into the background. The transport problem of the city will be solved by the Soviet authorities.

Summing up, it can be stated that all attempts to visualize the Moscow Metro belong to the futurological artistic tradition. The idea of building a Central station (station) is reflected in the works of each author. Also, all the works are united by the randomness of their appearance.

The authorities, in fact, did not need A. I. Antonovich's subway. Nikolai Karazin had to visualize a pretentious and even scandalous project. A significant part of the details is clearly invented by the artist himself. An unknown artist of sketches for postcards was faced with the task of advertising confectionery products of the Einem factory, going into the world of fantasy to a much greater extent than Nikolai Karazin.

These works show us how understandable the discussion about the subway was for the layman: by 1914, the subway was depicted on advertising products. The works of Nikolai Karazin and the author of the postcard sketches look too bold: the authorities would hardly allow the construction of overpasses on the main square of Moscow. This detail highlights how big the difference between a futurological and a real project can be.