Architecture in the "Stalinist Empire" style in the cultural landscape of Crimea.

Kotliar Elena Romanovna PhD in Art History Associate Professor, Department of Visual and Decorative Art, Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University named after Fevzi Yakubov 295015, Russia, Republic of Crimea, Simferopol, lane. Educational, 8, room 337 allenkott@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Zolotukhina Natal'ya Anatol'evna PhD in Cultural Studies Associate Professor; Department of Fine and Decorative Arts; Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University named after Fevzi Yakubov 8 Uchebny str., office 337, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, 295015, Russia zolotukhina-arisha@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Zolotuhina Arina YUr'evna Lecturer; Department of Fine and Decorative Arts; State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education 'Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University named after Fevzi Yakubov' Simferopol Lane, Republic of Crimea, 295015, Russia Educational, 8, room 337 kdi@kipu-rc.ru Other publications by this author

The three main directions of cultural studies include the substantiation of the multidimensional essence of culture, the laws of its determination, forms and features ^{[3, p. 6]}. Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev (1906-1999), a well-known Soviet and Russian philologist, art critic, and cultural critic, introduced the term ecology of culture into the scientific dictionary, which he understood as the idea of preserving the socio-cultural space by affirming the intrinsic value of all its constituent types of culture ^{[12, p. 94]}.

The ideas of the integrity of culture based on the integration and interaction of ethnic groups and civilizations as subjects of culture are contained in the work of the Russian sociologist and cultural critic, one of the authors of the civilizational approach to history, Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1882-1885): "Russia and Europe: A look at the cultural and political relations of the Slavic world to the Germanic-Romance" ^[5]. Danilevsky called the cultural and historical type or civilization the integrity of social, civil, political, economic development, religion, science, art, as well as all national communities in a certain territory, the main feature of which is a continuum of languages. Among the features of cultural and historical types, the following statement is key: "Civilization, peculiar to each cultural and historical type, only reaches completeness, diversity and richness when the ethnographic elements that make up it are diverse, when they, without being absorbed into one political whole, using independence, form a federation or a political system of states" ^{[5, p. 113]}.

The reflections of N. Y. Danilevsky and D. S. Likhachev relate to multinational regions (including Crimea), in which the totality of cultures of each nationality represents a unique whole, without destroying the identity of each ethnic group. The concept of a dialogue of cultures is impossible without the definition of "cultural landscape".

The term cultural landscape is based on a number of postulates. The Russian scientist-encyclopedist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945) put forward the concept of the noosphere, on the basis of which D. S. Likhachev introduced the term homosphere, designating it as "the sphere of influence and impact on the surrounding world of human activity" ^{[12, p. 91]}. In D. S. Likhachev's research on the ecology of culture, the historical landscape is presented as a natural and cultural territory formed as a result of long-term economic and socio-cultural human activity in this area ^{[12, p. 144]}.

Since the early 1990s, cultural landscapes have received the status of natural and cultural heritage. In the "Operational Guide for the implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention," the definition of "cultural landscape" has appeared, where it is designated as the result of "the joint creation of man and nature. The clear definition of the geocultural region of Crimea, as well as the presence of distinctive cultural elements in it, corresponds to the definition of a cultural landscape.

Vladimir Leopoldovich Kagansky (born 1954), a Soviet and Russian scientist, geographer and classification specialist, called the cultural landscape an archetype, which also includes sacred, semiotic, ethical and aesthetic components. "A cultural landscape is an earthly space, the living environment of a sufficiently large (self–preserving) group of people, if this space is both integral and structured, contains natural and cultural components, and is utilitarianly, semantically, and symbolically mastered" ^[7]. V. L. Kagansky believed that the cultural landscape is inherently dialectical. The author proposed metaphors for the cultural landscape as an "iconic text", a "carpet of places" ^[7].

Thus, the cultural landscape can be compared to a mosaic, the overall picture of which is created using a large number of individual components (languages, everyday and religious traditions, culture of nature exploration, semiotics of art, architectural traditions, etc.) ^[11].

The concept of the term "cultural landscape" is impossible without studying regionalism, the subject of which is the analysis of the determination of cultures within the geographical space determined by territorial, administrative, climatic, and landscape boundaries.

Dmitry Nikolaevich Zamyatin (born 1962), a geographer, cultural scientist and founder of the Center for Humanitarian Studies of Space at the D. S. Likhachev Russian Scientific Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage, is devoted to the interdisciplinary field of humanitarian geography. This science is a synthesis of cognitive geography, cultural landscape studies, sacred geography, and imaginative geography ^[6]. The direction examines the cultural landscape, regional identity, mental-geographical space, figurative-geographical space, local myth. D. N. Zamyatin presented the "geographical image" as a system of archetypes, symbols and stereotypes characterizing the designated territory.

The categories of cultural landscapes include cultural significance, personalization, recognition, locations, and the actualization of this region in national history.

D. N. Zamyatin considered diverse cultural texts to be the key formative elements of the cultural landscape (the term was introduced by A. Ya. Flier, based on articles by Russian semiotic and cultural scientist Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman (1922-1993) ^[13], as well as philologist, philosopher and orientalist Alexander Moiseevich Pyatigorsky (1929-2009). We are talking about both verbal (written) and non-verbal texts, such as architecture, fine art, and music. D. N. Zamyatin emphasized the importance of knowledge of local myths for deciphering such texts.

Quote from Doctor of Philosophy Diana Sergeevna Berestovskaya (1934-2020): "Crimea is a multicultural space, irreducible to one foundation, to ethnic one–dimensionality" ^[3]. The history of Crimea, due to its unique geographical location at the intersection of trade routes "from the Varangians to the Greeks", was characterized by constant ethnic migration and a change of government entities that left a mark on the culture of Crimea ^[15],[1].

Thus, the diversity of ideas about a particular cultural landscape is a set of cultural texts, from verbal to value-based, sacred-philosophical, visual-auditory. The Crimean cultural landscape is characterized by a large number of diverse features, including a unique nature with three climatic zones, an eventful history, and outstanding personalities whose activities are related to Crimea.

One of the significant patterns of the cultural landscape in general, and Crimea in particular, is the regional architectural style.

The concept of style in art includes a set of figurative systems and expressive artistic means based on a single creative method (method of their transmission). Through aesthetic categories, style reflects the tastes, economic opportunities, and social status of the customer, usually of a group of people, such as a certain ethnic group, or, in a global sense, is a marker of an entire state system. Through external features, a style can transmit information about the features of a particular era into history, that is, it is also a cultural text.

A style in architecture is a set of urban planning, the material used, proportions, load-bearing and decorative elements of architecture, its exterior and interior decoration, and the pieces of furniture and decorative arts that fill it. Architectural styles in history were most often global in nature, spreading not only within one country or region, but over a large-scale territory. For example, the ancient Greco-Roman style was characteristic of all regions during the existence of the Roman Empire, Romanesque and Gothic styles covered the territories of medieval Western and Eastern Europe, Baroque and Rococo styles, and later Empire and Art Nouveau also spread both in Europe and in Russia. The global features of the style were combined with regional influences, which formed their own characteristics in various regions, both aesthetically and semantically. Thus, architecture as part of the cultural landscape demonstrates both the global features of the time and the features of regional uniqueness.

The Empire style was formed in France in the first third of the 19th century, during the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte, but its characteristic features go back much deeper, to the time of Ancient Rome, and even further, to the imperial palaces of Ancient Egypt. The main features and goals of the architectural appearance of Empire buildings, as in Ancient Rome, were to emphasize the imperial power of France ^[4]. In general, the style was based on the classical order system, however, unlike the classicism of the previous period, rigidity, rigor of lines, rejection of ornate decor prevailed in the Empire style, and most importantly, the proportions of buildings became large-scale, majestic, and, despite the anthropomorphic proportions, evoked a sense of the unshakable power of the state system due to its hypertrophied size. and the crystal rigor of the forms.

Among the Empire-style structures borrowed from ancient Roman imperial architecture, the triumphal arch and the Imperial column are striking examples. These architectural objects have no practical (utilitarian) purpose, their creation is dictated by the desire to perpetuate the military might of the empire and glorify the emperor himself. During this period, two triumphal arches were built in Paris: on Carousel Square (based on the arch of Septimius Severus in Rome) and on Star Square, in honor of the Great Army (based on the arch of Titus in Rome). Also in Paris, the Vendome Column was erected with a statue of Napoleon on top, dressed in a Roman short cloak with a sword, the prototype of which was the Roman column of Trajan.

Empire architects and decorators introduced the strict Roman style not only into the exteriors and proportions of buildings, but also into the interiors – pieces of furniture and decor, the outlines of which copied the style of the Roman centurion, as well as, after Napoleon's campaign in Egypt, borrowed from ancient Egyptian examples of architecture and decorative arts.

It should be noted that, in addition to the general architectural categories borrowed by the Empire from ancient classicism, such as proportions and characteristic order elements, it is important to take into account the symbolic aspect of these elements. If the symbolism of the imperial column, as a monument to the personality of the ruler and his conquests, has a direct meaning of glorification and perpetuation in the memory of the people, then the significance of the Arc de triomphe is somewhat deeper. Thus, the arc de triomphe as a whole is a kind of entrance, a portal, the analogue of which is the entrance to the temple decorated with a colonnade. According to the way this portal is the threshold between the earthly and sacred space in the temple, the triumphal arch, through which the victorious emperor passes, is the rubicon of glory. Thus, the glory that any emperor aspired to is this sacred space, to which the portal-arch leads.

Based on the triumphal arches, structures such as rotundas subsequently appeared, where, unlike arches, the supporting columns are placed in a semicircle. Such rotundas began to mark significant places in cities associated with both military events and, subsequently, with civilian ones. Later, rotundas became tourist decorations for squares and embankments, also creating portals to local attractions and demonstrating hospitality.

The Empire style has spread not only in France, but also in other countries of Western and Eastern Europe, as well as in Russia. Of course, in each of the states, the Empire received a new color under the influence of authentic features of the architecture of a particular region: proportions, additional decorative elements, local symbols, etc. However, the Empire's "imperial orientation" towards the exaltation and glorification of the monarchy and its ruler remained unchanged. In Russia, the style spread in the early 19th century, in the first decades of the reign of Emperor Alexander I, and was called the "Alexander Empire" ^[14]. The Russian Empire style used the traditions of classicism, which became the official style of the capital, St. Petersburg, from the 18th century. The reinterpretation of the Empire style resulted in the creation of such architectural masterpieces as St. Isaac's Cathedral by O. Montferrand and Kazan Cathedral by A. Voronikhin. In these buildings, there is an obvious orientation towards the style of Imperial Rome, as well as subsequent Renaissance monuments, primarily the Cathedral of St. Peter the Great. Peter in Rome ^[14]. The round and semicircular colonnades and rotundas we have already mentioned have become part of temple and secular architecture, giving the buildings an impression of grandeur. The presence of a particularly large dome at the temple also indicates the centralization of power, the dome acts as a symbol of the unification of the empire around the royal court, like a large number of parishioners under the shadow of the dome of the temple.

Another iconic element of the Russian Empire style are the pointed spires that appeared in the famous buildings – the Admiralty (arch. A.D. Zakharov) and Peter and Paul Cathedral (arch. Thomas de Tomon). This element, previously uncharacteristic of Orthodox churches, also emphasizes the grandeur and strict centralization of the object's composition, pointing to the unity and greatness of power.

Unlike St. Petersburg, with its initial commitment to strict classicism, the Moscow Empire style was softer, and classicism was synthesized with national traditions in Moscow buildings. But in both St. Petersburg and Moscow, the mentioned Empire architectural elements – rotundas, colonnades, spires – were distributed not only in religious buildings, but also in secular buildings, both in public and private mansions. In addition, the use of the Russian Empire is typical for many examples of landscape architecture: pavilions, gazebos, garden rotundas and semi-rotundas, fountains, water cascades, landscape terraces. In this incarnation, the Empire plays the role of boudoir romance, which is more characteristic not of the Napoleonic style, but of the Josephine style, where Roman elegance is juxtaposed with beauty and refined luxury ^[14].

The architecture of any region, along with its nature, becomes the first impression for visiting guests and tourists. The formation of the architectural image of Crimea as an integral, harmonious system dates back to the period of its formation as part of the Russian Empire and the development of the sea coast as a resort. The Crimean Riviera became the site of the construction of sanatoriums, villas and palaces of the nobility, including the royal family. A huge contribution to the formation of a recognizable image of Crimea in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He introduced the Art Nouveau style as the quintessence of global and local styles inherent in the multiethnic Crimean culture ^[8].

The beginning of the spread of the Art Nouveau style dates back to the last decade of the 19th century. However, the construction of buildings in this style continued in the first third of the 20th century, and many traditions subsequently organically intertwined with postmodernism. This is due to the fact that Art Nouveau was a synthetic style that combined individual features of previous styles ^[16]. According to the predominance of features of a particular historical style, the stylistic varieties of Art Nouveau buildings were called "neo-Gothic", "neo-Baroque", "neo-rococo", etc. Modern and postmodern included, among other things, Empire elements. The "Crimean style" of palaces, villas, hotels and boarding houses was based on a classical Renaissance basis, but with the introduction of features from numerous eras and cultures that have left their mark on the centuries-old history of Crimea: these are Seljuk chains and stars, Baroque cartouches, vignettes, zoo and anthropomorphic relief elements, elegant portals in the Spanish-Moorish style. mudekhar, the Ottoman geometric ornamentation of girih, symbolic elements related to religions (Jewish tablets, seven candlesticks, Christian cross and flourishing cross, Muslim mihrabs, etc.) ^{[1],[10],[9],[2]}.

The free combination of such diverse elements provided the authors of building projects with the opportunity for great creative diversity, served to form a unique and recognizable creative style of each of the architects. The most famous architect of Art Nouveau, who stood at the origins of the formation of the recognizable "Crimean style", was the "architect of the highest court", Nikolai Petrovich Krasnov, chief architect of Greater Yalta, the author of the iconic Livadia Imperial Palace. In addition to N. P. Krasnov, Art Nouveau architects who contributed to the recognizable Crimean architectural appearance were P. Ya. Seferov and A. L. Henrikh in Yevpatoria, Ya. P. Semenov and O. E. Veneger in Bolshaya Yalta and Feodosia, A.M. Weizen and V. A. Feldman in Sevastopol, B. A. Zayonchkovsky in Simferopol.

Among the buildings erected in Crimea during the Art Nouveau period, there are also those built using the Empire style, or, as creative interpretations of famous styles in the Art Nouveau era were called, "neo-Empire". Stylistic markers of the Empire style are present in the facade of the pavilion of the Suuk-Su resort palace in Gurzuf, called the Casino (Fig. 1), for its resemblance to the fashionable gambling houses of the West. The palace was built according to the design of N. P. Krasnov for O. M. Solovyova in 1903. Since 1937 and to this day, the Lazurny building of the All-Union Artek Children's Camp has been located in it.

The Renaissance foundation of the two-storey building, divided into two tiers by means of an additional cornice, as well as an openwork balcony between the floors, is emphasized by built-in French windows overlooking the balcony of the central facade, and the same windows on the sides of the building. Adjacent to the side of the facade is a semicircular cylindrical projection topped with an Ionic rotunda characteristic of the Empire style. The building's grandeur and splendor are given by the quadrangular turrets above the central pediment, as well as two large protrusions – pilasters framing the facade, topped with sculptural vases. The decoration – stucco molding above the balcony windows, on the central frieze, as well as on the frieze between the two floors, represents magnificent cartouches and vignettes typical of the imperial Roman style.

Figure 1. Pavilion "Casino" of the Suuk-Su Resort Palace, Gurzuf village. 1897-1903. Architect N. P. Krasnov.

After the establishment of Soviet power in Crimea, its architectural appearance was largely adopted and continued by many architectural traditions of Art Nouveau. The subsequent postmodernism organically merged into the Crimean urban planning history, complementing the existing light, bright image of the southern urban centers with new iconic objects. Despite the initial introduction of constructivism, residential apartment buildings and industrial buildings were mainly built in this style, while the buildings of the central parts of the cities were not stylistically destroyed. However, architectural constructivism, as well as avant-garde creative pursuits in art and literature, were associated with the influence of the West, so they were banned by the Soviet authorities, and starting in 1932, the official course of development of Soviet art called "socialist realism" was proclaimed, and Soviet monumental classicism began to develop in architecture, which later became known as "the Stalinist Empire". Its heyday in the USSR occurred in the 1940s-1950s, but buildings in this style continued to be built throughout the country and later. Crimea was no exception, especially since the elegant Empire style was organic for him earlier, in the Art Nouveau era.

As in the previous stages of the development of the ceremonial imperial style – Roman classicism and the Napoleonic Empire based on it, the Russian Alexander Empire, Stalin's Soviet Empire with its elegant majesty was designed to emphasize the state power of the socialist Soviet Union ^[4]. According to the stated ideological program, the USSR was supposed to accumulate the world's cultural and artistic heritage, so the grandeur and beauty of previous world styles had to be embodied in architecture. The Stalinist Empire Style was a synthesis of a number of architectural trends: the Roman classical order design framework, complemented by Renaissance and Baroque decorative elements. At the same time, the desire to use expensive and presentable materials for construction and decoration was borrowed from Art Nouveau: marble, gold leaf, expensive types of wood, etc.

At the same time, the decor in the buildings of the Stalinist Empire is distinguished by its own symbols of the Soviet era: images of wreaths and sheaves of ears, sickle and hammer, sculptures, mosaics, stained glass windows and murals depicting soldiers, workers and peasants, industrial subjects.

The first examples of the Soviet Empire style were the famous Moscow skyscrapers – administrative, public and in some cases also residential complexes, designed in 1947 with the participation of the Secretary General himself. The most famous of them is the main building of Moscow State University. The building was designed by architect L. V. Rudnev. It was originally planned to put statues of Lenin and Stalin on the roof of its facade, but Stalin rejected this idea and suggested decorating the building with a spire. Since then, the spire crowning the main facade has become one of the hallmarks of the Stalinist Empire style. The entrance to the building was decorated in the traditions of classicism, with a portico with large marble columns. The presence of such a front facade has become another feature of many Soviet Empire buildings. Smaller columns and pilasters were also used in buildings in this style in the design of the storeys and tops in the form of rotundas. Another striking example of the Stalinist Empire style is the main building of VDNH and the pavilions of the Union republics.

The interior decoration of many public buildings (city administrations, museums and theaters, train stations, libraries) was also magnificent, they housed marble columns, pilasters and grand staircases, marble floor slabs, embossed ceiling decoration, statues, wooden panels, openwork metal fences, ceiling plafonds. The walls were decorated with paintings, mosaics, graffiti. The window openings often contained stained glass windows.

It is worth noting separately that such a magnificent decoration was typical not only for buildings, but also for underground metro stations. The Moscow metro is still considered one of the most ornate in the world. Similar decorations in the form of marble, mosaics, statues, stained glass windows, murals and reliefs distinguished the metro in other capitals of the Union republics and major cities of the USSR.

Many administrative buildings of Soviet ministries, city councils, courts, and directorates were built in the Stalinist Empire style. Crimea was no exception, although the Crimean Empire style largely echoed the earlier urban centers of the Art Nouveau period. Consider a number of administrative and public buildings in Crimea.

In Soviet times, Crimea was an autonomous republic, initially (until 1949) as part of the RSFSR, and then as part of the Ukrainian SSR. The main administrative center was the House of Soviets (fig. 2), where the Crimean Regional Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine was based. Its building was built in the city center, on Lenin Square (the former Market Square), on the site of the old market, which was moved to the place of its current existence, at the end of Kirov Street. The building of the House of Soviets was designed by architect V. A. Yaroshevsky, its construction was carried out in 1956-1960. The building is a strict classical construction of the base, the facade and the central entrance are loosened by Corinthian pilasters, the windows of the 3rd floor differ from the rest by a semicircular top, and round molded rosettes are placed under them. On both sides of the main facade there are projections decorated with square columns. Above the central pediment there is a protruding shield with the coat of arms of Crimea with the image of a griffin, and flags.

Figure 2. House of Soviets, Simferopol. 1956-1960. Architect V. A. Yaroshevsky

The Simferopol House of Trade Unions, located next to the House of Soviets, is also built in the classical Roman style. The large-scale three-story gray building is decorated with a triangular pediment supported by four Corinthian columns, on two sides of the entrance and at the corners the building is decorated with Corinthian pilasters. Similar architecture also distinguishes the building of the Institute of Mineral Resources on Kirova St., built in 1958 (architect L. Plakhov), the old military school building on the corner of Sevastopolskaya St. and Kozlov St., and other buildings of this time.

Another type of Empire style buildings, including in the Crimea, consists of facades topped with rotundas. In the center of Simferopol, these are two of the most recognizable examples of Stalinist architecture: an apartment building built in 1939 on Embankment Street as nomenclatural housing for top officials (architect P. Krzhizhanovsky) (Fig. 3), and the famous Simferopol cinema, erected in 1936 (now the Cinema House) on the square. Soviet (architect B. Isaev).

The house on the Embankment, according to the author's plan, was to become one of two identical houses located perpendicular to each other, along Kirova Street and Embankment Street, opening a semicircular center to the people, like the "embrace of the city". The architect failed to fully realize his idea, but even what was embodied became a memorable, iconic object. The architect connected the two side wings of the house with a semicircular (concave) middle part, and the edges of the building are topped with round rotundas, decorated with stone vases, as well as Corinthian columns and pilasters. Balconies and column joints in the corners of the building are decorated with balustrades. The house has both a solemn and intimate look, thanks to its excellent integration into the landscape of green spaces along the banks of the Salgir.

Figure 3. Apartment building with rotundas, Simferopol. 1939. Architect P. Krzhizhanovsky.

Another building with a rotunda, the building of the residential building of the Crimean government (fig. 4), built in 1934, has a different character. The author of the project is architect B. I. Belozersky. This asymmetrical four-storey building is a synthesis of constructivism, Art Nouveau and Empire style. The rotunda, crowning one of its corners, has a simple shape, and the supporting columns represent only the body, without capitals. The combination of rectangular and semicircular volumes (the arch of the entrance and the semicircular protrusion of the wall) make the building recognizable, unusual, and atypical for this time, despite the presence of a rotunda.

Figure 4. Apartment building of the Crimean government, Simferopol. 1934. Architect B. I. Belozersky.

Buildings designed by architect B. F. Isaev are also significant for Simferopol. This is the famous Simferopol cinema (now the Cinema House), the entrance and buildings of the Central Market of Simferopol, the main building of the Simferopol Medical Institute.

The Simferopol cinema (fig. 5) was built in 1956 according to the design of V. P. Kalmykov, modified taking into account the local landscape by B. F. Isaev. It housed two halls, "pink" and "blue", and was built in the neo-Empire style. The remarkable thing about the building is that it is not only crowned with two rotundas at the edges of the building, but these edges themselves have the appearance of round towers connected in the middle by a triangular portico entrance. On both sides of the building are arches that formalize the entrance to the park on the Salgir embankment. The Corinthian columns supporting the arch serve as decorations, as well as large semicircular Renaissance windows and a semicircular entrance decorated with a relief frieze add lightness to the building. Both the "House on the Embankment" and the Simferopol cinema building decorate Sovetskaya Square, being both historical recognizable objects and stylistic markers of the Soviet Empire.

Figure 5. Simferopol Cinema, Simferopol. 1956. Architects V. P. Kalmykov, B. F. Isaev.

In a combination of Empire style and Renaissance style, another building was built according to the project of B. Isaeva is the entrance to the Central Market of Simferopol (Fig. 6). It is made in the form of three arches supported by Corinthian columns, which is a direct reference to the Empire Style Triumphal Arches. In the upper part of the side pillars, the architect placed symbols of agriculture – sheaves of ears, which are characteristic of socialist realism and at the same time resemble woven laurel wreaths traditional for triumphalists. The modern color scheme of the entrance, of course, raises many questions, in our opinion, it would be more logical to use pastel beige and white shades to paint it, the poisonous green visually makes the arches heavier and does not fit into the overall southern light color of the buildings.

Figure 6. Entrance to the Central Market, Simferopol. 1956. Architect B. F. Isaev.

A large number of buildings built in the Soviet Empire style are located in Sevastopol. Sevastopol suffered greatly during the Second World War, so entire neighborhoods were rebuilt. Many pre-revolutionary buildings were lost, but the new urban plan was aimed at creating an image not only of the southern city, but also of the city of military glory, and the Stalinist Empire style as a style could not be more suitable to emphasize the grandeur and harmony of the seaside city. Sevastopol buildings, combined with nature, resemble a ceremonial marine uniform in color: a combination of white or light beige stone with black or dark blue sea and sky. The proportions of the buildings are both elegant and strong enough, "masculine" in type. Public buildings such as the railway station, administrative buildings, banks, and cultural and leisure buildings, such as theaters, cinemas, and clubs, were built in the ceremonial Empire style in Sevastopol.

The building of the railway station is a kind of "business card" of any city. If in Simferopol its building (1951, architect A. N. Dushkin) is entirely drawn to the Renaissance, with its arches and a water tower with a clock, then the Sevastopol railway Station (1950, architect A. N. Dushkin, V. P. Bogoyavlensky) (Fig. 7) is an example of the ceremonial Soviet Empire style, with a traditional triangular pediment, arched entrance and facade windows framed by stucco. The balustrade above the cornice also emphasizes the Empire style. The cylindrical finials above the side entrances are also noteworthy, shaped like marine bollards topped with spires and decorated with naval coats of arms and protruding ship keels. These details emphasize the naval character of the city. The white color of the building, contrasting with the dark blue southern sky, adds elegance to the architecture. Initially, the design of the station was, as in Simferopol, presented by the famous architect, Stalin Prize laureate A. N. Dushkin, but later it was finalized by V. P. Bogoyavlensky, however, it is known that both architects were actively involved in planning and consulting the construction.

Figure 7. Railway station, Sevastopol. 1950. Architect A. N. Dushkin, V. P. Bogoyavlensky.

In the Empire style, a hotel of the same name was built in Sevastopol in 1959 (architect Yu. A. Trautman, E. G. Stavinsky). The smooth facade is decorated with a balustrade, and the three entrances to the building (the central and two side ones) have projections relative to the wall, and are supported by ornate bundles of Corinthian columns. The layout of this hotel somewhat resembles the House of Soviets in Simferopol, which was built almost simultaneously, however, unlike the strict House of Soviets, the Sevastopol Hotel has an elegant southern character inherent in hotels and holiday homes. The style of the hotel resembles the buildings of the Crimean Riviera of the Art Nouveau era, in particular the Livadia Palace and other south-coast villas.

The most famous building in Sevastopol, built in the Empire style, is the Sailors' Club (now the Drama Theater of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation) (fig. 8), built in 1949-1956 by architects A. I. Gegello in collaboration with I. V. Bogdanov, A. S. Goldin, L. T. Kireev. The building's facade is framed by an open terrace with Ionic columns, and it is crowned by an asymmetrically arranged two-tiered, square rotunda with a spire. Along the edge, the cornice is decorated with a traditional balustrade for the Stalinist Empire style. It is characteristic that the square rather than round plan of the rotunda makes the building more austere, majestic, and gives it solemnity. At the same time, the white finish adds lightness to the architecture.

Figure 8. The Sailors' Club (now the Drama Theater of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation, Sevastopol. 1949-1956. Architects A. I. Gegello, I. V. Bogdanov, A. S. Goldin, L. T. Kireev.

Other buildings in Sevastopol are distinguished by similar architecture with a side rotunda tower and a spire at the top, for example, the residential building of the bakery, built in 1950-1952, and the famous Chernomorets, the Central Design Bureau of Shipbuilding (1956, architect L. N. Pavlov) (Fig. 9). The building resembles the silhouette of an ancient ship, it is The impression is enhanced by the rotunda tower at one end of the elongated building, resembling the funnel of a steamship. The ionic columns forming this rotunda are also a distinctive feature: they expand upwards, not downwards. The building is located on the central street of Sevastopol – Bolshaya Morskoy, and is one of the recognizable architectural dominants of the city.

Figure 9. Central Design Bureau "Chernomorets", Sevastopol. 1956. Architect L. N. Pavlov.

The building of the Lunacharsky Drama Theater (1954-1956, architect V. V. Pelevin) is distinguished by its elegant solemnity and at the same time lightness (Fig. 10). Tourists compare this building with the Tsarskoye Selo Cameron Gallery, which really makes sense: the theater also has an open gallery with high stairs with a balustrade. The classic triangular pediment is supported by Corinthian columns and crowned with a statue of Melpomene, the ancient goddess of the theater. The French windows with a semicircular top facing the gallery, the light color of the decoration, and the moldings above the windows and in the spaces between the windows add lightness to the building. Other post-war cultural institutions of Sevastopol are also distinguished by their lightness and harmony, for example, the building of the Pobeda cinema built in the antique style (1950, architect A. N. Ivanov, Yu. A. Trautman).

Figure 10. Lunacharsky Drama Theater, Sevastopol. 1954-1956. Architect V. V. Pelevin.

Another type of facilities to which the elegant Empire style was applied in the Crimea, due to the importance of the resort and tourist orientation for the economy of the region, were hotels, rest homes, sanatoriums and boarding houses. Government decrees indicated the creation of affordable recreation for workers. The Soviet Crimea was one of the all-Union health resorts, there were international pioneer camps "Artek" and "Orlyonok", and many others, along the shores of Sevastopol, Yevpatoria, Feodosia, Kerch, Alushta, Sudak, Yalta and adjacent villages (Bolshoy Yalta), a large number of hotel and resort facilities for children and adults were built. The southern coastal towns and villages suffered less during the Great Patriotic War than Sevastopol, so a number of resorts were located in pre-revolutionary and early Soviet buildings. However, after the war, new buildings were built for this purpose. The most famous of them are the Nizhnyaya Oreanda Hotel in Bolshaya Yalta (1948, architect M. Ya. Ginzburg) (fig. 11), Rodina sanatorium in Bolshaya Yalta (Gaspra) (1950, architect B. V. Efimovich) (Fig. 12), Slava sanatorium in Alushta (Fig. 13) and others.

Soviet post-war sanatoriums amaze with the magnificent splendor of the Empire style, they were not accidentally called "palaces for the people." If the architecture of administrative and public buildings, cultural centers, universities and even theaters carry strict beauty and grandeur of proportions, then South coast sanatoriums set up for rest and contemplation of the beauty of nature. One of the most difficult tasks in the construction of recreation complexes was not only to take into account all the features of the territory, its earthquake hazard, difficult terrain, but also to fit the building into the surrounding landscape, without disturbing, but on the contrary, multiplying the viewpoints. The architects solved these problems using the experience of existing buildings built earlier in the Art Nouveau era, but also introduced new elements using new construction technologies. It should be noted that the general architectural style of the southern coast, namely Art Nouveau, was not disrupted by the appearance of new buildings. Sanatoriums, hotels, and Empire-style vacation homes perfectly correlated with existing architectural sites. Despite the scale of the proportions of Stalinist Empire architecture, it did not become heavy in recreation complexes, due to the predominantly white color of the walls and light moldings, as well as the abundance of arches that visually lighten the building. The sanatoriums of the Southern Coast are also characterized by the presence of additional recreation areas in the form of courtyards, arcades (Renaissance and Byzantine type), complemented by fountains, sculptures, gazebos, rotundas. An important factor was the design of the park, flower beds, gazebos, and walking paths on its territory, along with the building. The fact that sanatoriums and rest homes built after the war are still popular speaks to the impeccable taste and correct understanding of the tasks of their architects.

Figure 11. Nizhny Oreanda Hotel, Yalta. 1948. Architect M. J. Ginzburg.

Figure 12. Sanatorium "Rodina", village Gaspra. 1950-1955. Architect B. V. Yefimovich.

Figure 13. Sanatorium "Slava", Alushta. 1964.

Of course, objects in the Stalinist or Soviet Empire style are not limited to those presented in this article, there are a lot of them. However, they reflect the basic typology of buildings erected in this style.

After analyzing the studied material, we can state the following:

The Stalinist or Soviet Empire was based on the classical Roman Imperial architecture, as well as on the architecture of its followers – the European Napoleonic Empire and the Russian Alexander Empire. The main goal in each case was to emphasize the power of the state with the help of majestic, large-scale buildings and structures such as arches, rotundas, and spires. Using the example of Crimean objects in this style, created mainly in the post-war period (after 1945), three main types of buildings can be distinguished and the use of certain Empire style features in them, in addition to general categories.

The first type includes various administrative and public buildings: administrations, buildings of educational institutions, trade union organizations, departments of various departments, railway station buildings. The character of these buildings is usually characterized by classical rigor, adherence to antique proportions and features of the order without excessive decorations, as such are usually the capitals of columns or pilasters.

Cultural institutions can be classified as the second type: theaters, museums, cultural centers, sometimes residential departmental houses, cinemas. In addition to the general antique proportions and decorative elements, these structures include more lavish decorations in the form of stucco, sculptures, arched structures (window and entrance openings, arcades), balustrades, grand staircases, and predominantly light-colored finishes.

The third type includes sanatorium-resort complexes on the seashore. When using the classical order system, they are distinguished by the largest amount of decoration, not only in the capitals, but also on the walls, around entrance and window openings, in courtyards, sculptures, fountains, stairs, etc. In addition, it is in resort construction that additional changes in the plan of buildings are most often found, such as, for example, the presence of an alcove or bay window, asymmetry, synthesis of the ancient style with other styles also inherent in the culture of Crimea: Seljuk, Asia Minor, Byzantine, etc. It is resort construction that is most characterized by the white color of the finish and the contrast of silhouettes of buildings with the blue sky and sea and the dark green needles of the southern coast.

Considering the use of almost all buildings to this day, sometimes for a new purpose, after restoration, but without violating the general appearance of the structures, we can conclude that they are of high quality, have a high understanding of style, and are integrated into the natural and cultural landscape of Crimean cities.