Modernism vs Heritage, Housing vs Architecture? Intentions and Practice of Socialist Modernist Architecture Protection in Lithuania

The first examples of modern Soviet architecture were enlisted on the Lithuanian Cultural Monuments list back in Soviet times. In the regional contexts most exceptional is the fact that just a few years before the collapse of the Soviet Union not only the most famous pieces of pre-war modern architecture were deemed worthy of legal protection, but also a number of works by modernist architects from the Soviet times. Some of those buildings, completed not earlier than in the eighties of the 20th century, were still rather new at the time of placing them on the list. Those new ‘architectural monuments’ also represented a wide range of typology – from exceptional public buildings to grey standard residential blocks. However, the main question remains what this recognition and formal protection meant and means in practice. Even at the time of entry on the list there were serious contradictions among experts, who couldn’t approve of the fact that completely new buildings were granted the status of architectural monuments. Yet, ideological requirements finally took over and the list was completed in two stages: first, most famous works by most recognised architects were entered, and a year later several pieces of more mundane architecture, including residential blocks. However, all those buildings remained only formally under protection on the basis of their status of monument. They were never understood as real, genuine heritage worth proper management or conservation. Despite the fact that those buildings were most prominent examples of the ambiguous historical period and thus most closely associated with the Soviet system, all the entries were automatically transferred to the Register of Cultural Values of the newly reinstated independent Lithuanian state. Yet, their subsequent fates are rather different. As with two stages of making the list, it is possible to distinguish two paths of protection and even two modernisms within the architecture of the Soviet period. The differences are not dependant on the period of construction but directly related to the function and grandeur of a building in question. Formally, majority of the Soviet period historical monuments were legally protected up until very recently. Nowadays, representative public buildings are gaining more respect and, while practical conservation issues are still very relevant, the very existence of those buildings is not in immediate danger. On the contrary, the “grey and mundane” residential architecture is shifting towards a different storyline. It has remained legally hibernated and many small, self-initiated and often self-made alterations by it residents were taking place for several decades. However, several years ago a delisting process started. First of all to be hit, in 2012, was the entire residential area where the development pressure was highest and finally only 4 pieces of residential architecture and urbanism remained on the list as for 2019, and not a single example of any mass housing. This trend confirms that an ambiguous attitude toward this type of architecture has persisted and it is still not regarded as worth preservation. Moreover, it threatens to preserve a distorted picture of the Soviet past for the future – cream of the crop architecture only, eliminating everyday life environments and putting the happy afterlife of the essence of socialist modernism architecture under question