Tashkent Modernist Architecture. Modernity and tradition in Central Asia

Description

1. Zhemchug residential building, Tashkent, 41°18′9.661″N 69°16′2.005″E
2. House of Publishers, Tashkent, 41°18'40.366″N 69°16′12.817″E
3. Sun Heliocomplex, Parkent, 41°18′46.678″N 69°44′23.296″E
4. Palace of Aviation Constructors, Tashkent, 41°17'32.24″N 69°20′30.58″E 
5. State Museum of the History of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, 41°18′41.166″N 69°16′9.541″E
6. Peoples’ Friendship Palace, Tashkent, 41°18′31.11″N 69°14′28.998″E
7. State Circus, Tashkent, 41°19′27.2548″N 69°14′34.606″E
8. State Museum of Arts, Tashkent, 41°18'10.138″N 69°16′40.468″E
9. Union of Artists, Tashkent, 41°18’31.831″N 69°15’59.126″E
10. Panoramic Cinema, Tashkent, 41°19'10.044"N 69°15'34.547"E
11. Chorsu Bazaar, Tashkent, 41°19′36.382″N 69°14′6.209″E
12. Uzbekistan Hotel, Tashkent, 41°19′27.2548″N 69°14′34.606″E
13. Republican House of Tourism, Tashkent, 41°18’39.618″N 69°17′7.545″E
14. Blue Domes, Tashkent, 41°18’24.443″N 69°16’0.922″E
15. Cosmonauts’ Prospekt Metro Station, Tashkent, 41°18′18.579″N 69°15′53.032″E
16. TV Tower, Tashkent, 41°20’44.338″N 69°17′5.573″E

Tashkent Modernist Architecture (TMA) is an outstanding example of how twentieth-century architecture was used to shape an early cosmopolitan capital, i.e., a vibrant mosaic of cultures and ethnicities, following the political and social shift in Central Asia under the Soviet period.

The series under nomination testifies how postwar architecture accompanied the urban design of a twentieth-century capital and the building of a new society in a continuous dialogue with history and tradition. TMA includes sixteen modernist buildings representing the major social, political, urban, and architectural project that unfolded in the capital of Uzbekistan between the Thaw period and the fall of the USSR, when Tashkent was the fourth most populous city in the Soviet Union.

Having been the crossroads of cultures for centuries, Tashkent became the capital of so-called Russian Turkestan in 1867, as part of the ‘Great Game’ rivalry between the Russian and British Empires over Central Asia. The city was further modernized during the Soviet period. Industrialization began in the 1920s and was boosted as a result of World War II, since many factories and scientific facilities relocated from western Russia and Ukraine to Tashkent. Two million evacuees dramatically increased the city population, and Tashkent became a testing ground for social and urban experiments in the second half of the twentieth century. An earthquake destroyed much of the city on April 26, 1966, and the subsequent reconstruction speeded up the modernization process. Tashkent was rebuilt with the help of workers who came from across the USSR, in the spirit of peoples’ friendship.

The new city was to be both the Soviet gateway to Asia and a showcase of the “Soviet Orient,” vivid proof of how socialism could adapt to any postcolonial scenario. During the Thaw period Tashkent was the main venue in the region for Soviet-sponsored international conferences and scientific, industrial, and artistic meetings. As a result, Soviet Tashkent restored Central Asia to its former transitional function on the Great Silk Road, a place where cultures, races, ideas, and languages intertwined. Modernist architecture represented the forward-looking “Soviet Orient.”

TMA’s sixteen components are outstanding examples of Soviet modernist architecture due to their unique design. They also reflect the collaboration between Tashkent and Moscow design institutes and the evolution of architectural research from 1960 to 1991, i.e. the last three decades of the USSR. Experimentation led to typological and technical innovation for seismic resistance, climate mitigation, and adaptation to regional culture. Each component blended modernist architecture with traditional elements (settlement, typological, and decorative) of Central Asian culture. TMA testifies to how Tashkent was a unique social and urban experiment in the second half of the twentieth century, i.e., a vital and multiethnic encounter between modernity and tradition, Europe and Asia.

Historical Overview

Due to its strategic location, Tashkent was a target of expansionist ambitions throughout its long and complex history and soon emerged as one of the key cities in Central Asia. As part of the Khanate of Kokand, the city was a pivotal crossroads for caravan routes in the nineteenth century, facilitating trade among the Kazakhs, Russians, and Western China. Tashkent became the capital of so-called Russian Turkestan in 1867, as part of the “Great Game” rivalry between the Russian and British Empires over Central Asia, and was one of the region's main cultural and craft centers. Nevertheless, the Russians implemented a colonizing policy aimed at asserting dominance and superiority. The first step was building new Tashkent, which was neatly separated from the old city on the eastern side of the Anchor Canal. 'New' Tashkent was the administrative capital of the Turkestan Governorate-General. When the Soviets took power, they began transforming the former Russian colony into a "flourishing garden" and the center of Soviet life in Asia. As a process of decolonization from Russian feudal rule, Sovietization in Central Asia was supposed to “modernize,” “civilize” the Uzbek people, “freeing” them from the supposedly negative aspects of their past and pushing them toward a positive future.

Industrialization began in the 1920s and was boosted as a result of World War II, when many factories and scientific facilities relocated from western Russia and Ukraine to Tashkent. Huge numbers of evacuees drastically increased the city's population and its multicultural composition. The city was the destination for further migratory waves in the early postwar period. As a result, Tashkent emerged as a testing ground for social and urban experiments between Asia and Europe, colonization and decolonization, innovation and tradition, modernism and orientalism. Tashkent's Sovietization model had universal applications, and the Uzbek capital would soon help spark a global revolution to bring socialism to towns and cities across Uzbekistan, Central Asia, and beyond. Architects and town planners strove to create a new city and, at the same time, a new Uzbek and Soviet national identity. This project involved the design of an urban center that combined the architecture of the twentieth century with local architectural features. Since 1930, when Tashkent became the capital of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Uzbekistan, numerous urban plans had been developed to achieve this aim. Each General Plan drawn up during the Soviet period bears different witness to these intentions.

The 1966 earthquake provided the opportunity to realize this ambitious project. Indeed, the destructive event gave access to economic and workforce capacities that were previously unimaginable. Just a few days after the earthquake, Leonid Brezhnev, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, invoked the friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union to aid comrades from the capital of the Uzbek Soviet Republic. Consequently, each Soviet republic had to provide economic aid and workers. In a few days, thousands of engineers, technicians, workers, and young volunteers from every country of the Soviet Union arrived in Tashkent on trains full of construction materials. This effort made it possible to solve many issues that urban plans had been addressing for decades but without access to the economic resources needed.

The center of Tashkent and the TMA buildings were developed within this framework. A very low-density urban area, characterized by a network of parks and canals and dotted with public and collective architecture designed for urban ensembles, Tashkent represented an ideal experimental and pioneering scenario. The selected buildings respond to a specific twentieth-century urban idea, which aimed to connect the old city to the new one through a well-structured urban grid where each building represented a node. A green space was interwoven with the grid as an urban and conceptual buffer between the city's two sides, creating public spaces for the people's leisure time and acting as a tool for climate mitigation. The series components respond to the repertoire of new architectural typologies, defined through architectural, social, and urban research, initiated in the Soviet Union after the Revolution and continued until 1991, as testified to by the technological and aesthetic experiments carried out by many design institutes under the Soviets.

The Series

The series contains sixteen components. Each component represents a specific urban function, i.e. a place where the life of modern men and women would unfold under Soviet Socialism: housing, work, scientific research, education, memory and collective identity, public assembly and representation of power, culture, leisure, trade, tourism, outdoor, urban infrastructures. Also, each component plays an urban role in the twentieth-century city’s renovation, merging the “old” Asian side with the “new,” “European” side. Finally, each component integrates modernist architecture and traditional elements (settlement, typological, decorative) of Central Asia’s visual culture.

Housing

Zhemchug (design 1972–1984, construction 1975–1985) is a seventeen-story residential building designed by Ophelia Aydinova. In 1986 it was awarded the gold medal as the building of the year by the Union of Architects of the USSR. Zhemchug is a highly experimental building aspiring to create a vertical analogue to the single-story community housing of Central Asia’s historic cities, the mahallas. The apartments are grouped around three-story suspended courtyards where inhabitants could practice the collective way of living within extended family units. Zhemchug was also one of the first uses of fully monolithic concrete construction in Tashkent, with the sliding formwork liberating the architecture from the rigid constraints of prefabricated construction. The experimental construction and the ability to merge modernist architecture and quasi-anthropological interpretation of traditional mahallas make Zhemchug a unique example in the global scenario of modernist architecture.

Work

House of Publishers (design 1969–1971, construction early 1970s–1974) is a high-rise building conceived to house the editorial offices of the official press in the Uzbek SSR. It was designed by a team from the Uzgosproekt Design Institute under the guidance of architect Richard Bleze. The building was strategically situated in the new city's core, along the former Lenin Boulevard and next to the governmental ensemble, the former Lenin Museum (1970), and the Navoi Theater (1947). The House of Publishers was one of the most prominent 1970s buildings in Tashkent and was imprinted with the futuristic ideas of the previous decade. This twentieth-century clocktower could be seen day and night from various parts of the city, like an urban lighthouse symbolizing the power of the press as a source of public information and a city sentinel. The building’s prominent urban role, its incorporation of the first large scale LED information board in Uzbekistan, and the outstanding modernist design makes House of Publishers a unique example of Soviet Modernism in Tashkent and worldwide.

Scientific research

Sun Heliocomplex (design 1981–1983, construction 1981–1986) is a research center in the mountain area of Parkent, 30 km east of Tashkent, built around a solar furnace. Moscow architect Viktor Zakharov designed the complex to test advanced materials at high temperatures using solar energy. It was awarded the gold medal by the Union of Architects of the USSR in 1987 as the best building of the year. With only one precedent, in France, the Heliocomplex is one of the last large scientific projects in the Soviet Union and testifies to the high level of scientific research. The project is a unique connection between architecture, the arid landscape and climate, and a valuable synthesis with monumental art, which consists of glass works by Irena Lipene.

Education

Palace of Aviation Constructors (design 1974–1980, construction 1976–1981) is a large “palace of culture,” or neighborhood center for community education and recreation. Architects A. Onishchenko, R. Takhtaganov, M. Vakhidov, and Yu. Korostelov designed the building on behalf of the Tashkent Aviation Production Association to provide workers' families with a recreational and cultural center in the Lisunov (Yashnabadsky) residential district, once a center for manufacturing Antonov and Ilyushin aircraft. Following the trend in Tashkent’s late modernist architecture, the building has a robust and austere appearance, well rooted in the neighborhood's industrial identity, with aircraft-aluminum details decorating the façade and foyer rather than details inspired by Central Asian motifs. For its capacity to embody the 1970s industrially based city identity on both the urban and architectural scales and its exemplary role as an educational and recreational center, the Palace of Aviation Constructors is a unique example of Soviet modernism worldwide.

Memory and Collective Identity

State Museum of the History of Uzbekistan (design 1968–1969, construction 1969–1970), the former Lenin Museum, is an exhibition pavilion initially celebrating the centenary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. It is an outstanding example of Soviet modernism because of its impeccable placement within the urban fabric of the new city and its pure architectural concept, featuring in an original manner elements of modernist, classical, and traditional architecture. The building also integrates innovative solutions such as prefabrication and curtainwall with decorative motifs from Central Asian culture such as the pandjara shading system. Moreover, since many of these features were later applied in the broader context of other museums in the USSR, the Lenin Museum proved to be a critical model and an icon of the image of Tashkent as a capital.

Public Assembly and Representation of Power

Peoples’ Friendship Palace (design 1974, construction 1977–1981) is Tashkent's largest congress and concert hall, with 4,100 seats. Architects E. Rozanov, V. Shestopalov, E. Shumov, and E. Sukhanova designed the building on the southern end of Furkat Street, the primary north-south urban axis, with the State Circus at the opposite northern end. The Palace belonged to the Soviet programmatic typology that combined a congress hall for Communist Party summits and a concert hall for important ceremonies and performances. The Kremlin Palace of Congresses, designed by architect M. Posokhin in 1961, was the prototype that inspired Soviet capitals to erect similar buildings, hence featuring monumental scale, classical symmetry, and interior décor. Tashkent's Peoples’ Friendship Palace has a majestic appearance and a distinctive urban role. A monumental façade blends modular modernity and Islamic-inspired decoration. The Pandjara-like sunscreens and honeycomb elements crowning the building recall the Islamic muqarnas, while the extensive use of prefabricated concrete and glazing testify to modernity. Internally, the grand chandeliers embellish the full-height sixteen-metre-high foyer, where the careful choice and impeccable execution of materials make this building unique.

Culture

State Museum of Arts of Uzbekistan (design 1967–early 1970s, construction 1967–1974) is an exhibition pavilion in the city's southwest, designed by architects S. Rosenblum, I. Abdulov, and A. Nikiforov. The museum was the most abstract architecture in Tashkent when constructed. Its interior is dominated by a grand staircase clad in local stone and a bright atrium illuminated by a large skylight. The building's austere geometry did not attempt to blend modernist architecture with Central Asian decoration. The 1963 Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library at Yale University, designed by Gordon Bunshaft of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, was clearly a source of inspiration for Tashkent's 1967 floating cube. However, Rosenblum's design relies on Islamic geometry, the so-called "proportional square" or "holy section," and evokes the symbolism of Suprematism with its central icon, the square. The ability to subtly combine the geometrical rules of Asian culture with a tribute to a contemporary Western masterpiece makes this architecture a perfect temple of the arts in the capital of Uzbekistan and a unique example of modernist architecture worldwide.

Union of Artists (design 1969–1974, construction 1972­–1974) is an exhibition pavilion designed by the architects R. Khairutdinov (project architect), F. Tursunov, B. Melnikov, T. Sadykov, and F. Devlikamova. The Union of Artists is a pavilion-in-the-park connected to the green areas at the intersection between the former Uzbekistan Street (Karimov Street) and the former Lenin Avenue (Rashidov Avenue), the institutional north-south axis, where most representative buildings line up. The architects placed the building on a podium to make it appear higher and fully visible on two sides, thus emphasizing the crossing point of two urban axes. The double symmetry of the volume derives from the central plan, which is composed of a multiple-height atrium illuminated with a multicolored skylight. The ground-level façade is recessed inward to create a shaded porch on four sides. Also, the facades made of prefabricated concrete panels are covered with repetitive stucco decoration on a blue tiled background. The Union of Artists marked an essential step in developing Tashkent’s architecture, suggesting a more subtle and unexpected combination of Asian and modernist vocabulary, and making the pavilion a unique example in the global scenario.

Leisure

State Circus (design 1962–1970, construction 1965–1976) is the second largest circus built in the USSR, designed by architects G. Aleksandrovich and G. Masy The 3,000-seat, 77-meter diameter shell of the main pavilion hosts shows in a permanent structure, circus being a form of traditional entertainment that was very popular in the territories of the former Soviet Union thanks to its universal language. Structurally, the building combines steel and reinforced concrete to enhance seismic resistance. The State Circus was conceived as one of the main poles of the twentieth-century urban design of Tashkent, being at the intersection of the two major avenues bridging the new and the old city, Navoi Street (east-west) and Furkat Street (north-south), at the southern end of which is the Peoples’ Friendship Palace. A distinctive shape, the exceptional dimensions, experimental construction, and fundamental role of urban hinge between old and new city make the State Circus a unique example of modernist architecture in the former USSR.

Panoramic Cinema (design 1960–1964, construction 1962–1964) is a composite building housing a large cinema and related facilities. V. Berezin, S. Sutyagin, Y. Khaldeev, D. Shuvaev, and O. Legostaeva designed the building after winning the competition for a 2,500-seat cinema. The building is a focal point of an urban block devoted to leisure facilities, including the Pakhator Stadium (1956), the House of Youth/Ilkhom Theater (1976), and the TV Center (1978). The building’s iconic design couples a horizontal transparent block hosting the vestibule, an extensive cafe, and a cylindrical drum hosting a panoramic-screen-technology cinema auditorium. The perimetral walls of the latter are composed of an unprecedented structure made of loadbearing concave concrete slabs (approximately 90 x 20 x 270 cm) piled one on another. For its urban role in the post-earthquake reconstruction, its function as an innovative leisure attraction, and its experimental design the Panoramic Cinema is one of Tashkent's most outstanding and internationally renowned modernist buildings, brilliantly representing the city's spirit in the 1960s.

Trade

Chorsu Bazaar (design 1980–1986, construction 1985–1990) occupies the urban block where the oldest bazaar of Tashkent was historically sited, on Sakichmon Street. The building stands in a highly meaningful position next to the 16th-century Kuleldosh Madrasah, beside the still preserved western neighborhoods and next to the Chorsu Hotel, where Navoi Street terminates at the heart of the old city. Chorsu is a Persian word meaning “crossroads” or “four streams.” This large complex is part of an ambitious masterplan aimed at interpreting the historically layered context and finding a balance between memory and modernization. The bazaar has a vast two-story basement where trucks circulate to supply the bazaar's stores and remove garbage. The bazaar operates every day on the flat roof of this functionalist basement. Steel pergolas and ceramic-tile decorated domes protect vendors from rain and sun. Chorsu Bazaar is a masterpiece of late Soviet Modernism in Tashkent, when rationalist principles of functionality and modernist composition intertwined with a deep understanding of history and the local culture, of which the bazaar is the most eloquent testimony. The large dome, decorated with colored tiles of irregular shape, is today a worldwide icon of Tashkent and continues to confer a sense of ordered monumentality on the busy life of the bazaar. For these reasons, Chorsu Bazaar is a unique example in the global scenario of twentieth-century architecture.

Tourism

Uzbekistan Hotel (design 1963–1974, construction 1969–1974) is a seventeen-story building facing Amir Temur Square, the central pole of the new city. A team of designers, engineers, and artists led by architect Ilya Merport designed this architectural icon of Tashkent, which became the postcard image of the capital. A well-chosen position in the urban plot, elegant proportions, a curved shape, and the full-height pandjara-like sunscreen protecting the iconic facade make this building a unique example combining Central Asian and modernist features.

Republican House of Tourism (design 1975–1980, construction 1980–1986) was designed by Vladimir Narubansky for the Soviet tourism agency Intourist. It was intended as an information and propaganda center for international tourists and borrowed its spatial typology and functional organization from cultural institutes in Europe and the United States. When completed, the building witnessed the progressive decay of the Soviet system and was mainly used as an experimental cinema for art house films. The Republican House of Tourism is intelligently inscribed in the context of the park behind the Uzbekistan Hotel, next to the former Intercontinental Hotel (Tata Hotel), with which a physical connection was initially intended. RHT's focal point was a multifunctional 600-seat oval hall, accessed from a spacious foyer on two levels, hosting a café and a lounge. The block is connected through a glazed foyer to an intimate courtyard, enclosed by two-level office volumes on the remaining three sides. The brick volume of the multifunctional hall and the cladding of the courtyard contain decorative reliefs interpreting the ornamental motifs of the region with standard Soviet materials. The interior staircase within the foyer is finished with the Gazgan marble of different cuts and lit by a hidden skylight, creating a poetic play of shadow and light. Thanks to the exemplary composition of an oval block with a courtyard parallelepiped, which coherently declines an imported typology to the local climate, and for the use of Central Asian decorative features, the Republican House of Tourism is a unique building.

Outdoor

Blue Domes Café (design 1968–1969, construction: 1969–1970) is a hypostyle pavilion designed to house a café and a restaurant by architect Vil Muratov from the Tashkent Tashgenplan Institute. The Blue Domes Café is part of a vast green area named Lenin Boulevard, which was inaugurated in 1970 to commemorate the centenary of the birth of the Soviet leader and as a component of the post-earthquake General Plan. It updated the effort of previous city plans to create a scattered green area serving as a buffer zone between the old and the new city. The Blue Domes Café also represents an early attempt to elaborate in a contemporary manner on the most recognizable feature of Islamic architecture, the dome, liberating it from massive walls by suspending it on slender columns. The playful architecture of the Blue Domes Café anticipated the second generation of Soviet Modernism in Tashkent and aligned with Lenin Boulevard's spirit of celebrating peoples’ friendship. Due to its connection with the city's green area and its joyful effort to combine local and modernist language, the Blue Domes Café stands out as one of the most iconic TMA buildings.

Urban Infrastructure

Cosmonauts’ Prospekt Metro Station (design 1981–1982, construction 1982–1984) is a space-program-themed station of the Tashkent Metro, the first underground in Central Asia, which was launched in 1977. Tashkent's subway was more than a public transportation system, being tangible proof of the modernization process. The architecture of the stations aimed to testify to the country's history and identity, and each was designed to celebrate a specific theme. For instance, Alisher Navoi Station's geometrical and colorful mosque-like architecture bore witness to centuries of Persian influence. S. Sutyagin and S. Sokolov designed Cosmonauts’ Avenue station to honor the Soviet space program. The metro station is decorated in pale blue tiles, with glass columns and an illuminated glass ceiling resembling the Milky Way. Circular protruding medallions decorate the walls with images of Galileo, Icarus, Ulugbek, V.N. Volkov, V.A. Dzhanibekov, the Sputnik, and Yuri Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova, the first man and woman in space. A profound combination of architecture and applied arts and the high quality of design and execution applied to public transport infrastructure make "Prospekt of Cosmonauts" a unique example in the panorama of modernist architecture.

TV Tower (design 1968–late 1970s, construction 1978–1984) is a 375-meter-high broadcasting tower for radio and TV in a northeast neighborhood, from where it dominates Tashkent's skyline. It was built as part of a large green area along the banks of the Bozsu canal. Architects A. N. Travyanko and V. E. Rusanov and Tashgiprotrans Institute engineers E. P. Morozov and M. D. Mucheev led a large design team. To make this very tall structure earthquake-resistant, they used a mixed structure combining a central pylon with three oblique supports. The TV Tower's distinctive shape testifies to technical progress and the designers' efforts to comply with post-1966 earthquake concerns with an unprecedented solution in Tashkent that avoided replicating solutions previously used in other Soviet cities. The TV Tower is also noteworthy for the works of applied art featured in the interiors (atrium, panoramic restaurant, and museum). A. Bukharbaev's mosaics and I. Lipene's artworks mark a pinnacle in the modernist synthesis of the arts. As an experimental combination of earthquake-resistant structure, modernist architecture, and applied arts, the TV Tower is a unique example of modernist supertall infrastructure.

Justification of Outstanding Universal Value

Tashkent’s Soviet modernization in the 1960s was defined by two directives, portraying the city as a model of Sovietization as decolonization and development and of multicultural friendship. Tashkent Modernist Architecture testifies to this combination.

First, Tashkent Modernist Architecture is an outstanding example of non-Western modernity in the twentieth century, where modernization was a non-capitalist path toward development. This theory of modernization was sanctioned by the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1961, and its role was to culminate in the utopian elevation of all Soviet people to the highest level of socialist culture. Tashkent was an example of how socialism could adapt beyond its European roots to help less developed countries out of poverty in Asia and the rest of the colonial and postcolonial world.

Second, Tashkent Modern Architecture reflects the process of indigenization, i.e. adapting something to one’s own culture, in the period from the Thaw to the end of the Soviet Union. The 1960s revival of the Soviet project aimed to fully involve all Republics in the benefits of Soviet modernization by supporting the representation and cultures of national minorities. Despite many cracks, this project created an opportunity for local culture to take part in the making of Soviet society in Uzbekistan, including architecture and urbanization. The urban renovation of Tashkent into a twentieth-century cosmopolitan city of equality of national minorities under socialism helped to spread positive images of the USSR worldwide. Under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Tashkent was a tourist magnet and the main meeting point in Central Asia for scientific conferences, cultural festivals, and sporting events that brought together delegates from Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and other regions of the developing world. Tashkent was the Soviet “gateway to Asia” and a showcase of the Soviet Orient for the USSR and the rest of the world.

Tashkent Modern Architecture testifies to Tashkent’s unique social and urban experiment in the 1960s and 1970s, forming a vital and multiethnic crossroads between colonization and decolonization, modernity, and tradition, Europe, and Asia. Also, TMA’s sixteen components reflect the collaboration between Tashkent and Moscow design institutes and harmoniously blend modernist architecture with traditional elements (settlement, typological, and decorative) of the culture of Central Asia.

The modernist architectural series of Tashkent offers an original synthesis of different cultures from two continents, Asia and Europe. The originality of Tashkent Modern Architecture's buildings testifies to the twentieth-century update of the cultural crossroads that Uzbekistan had represented in Central Asia for centuries.

Criterion (ii): Tashkent Modernist Architecture of the 1960s–1990s translates the encounter of European and Central Asian cultures into a unique visual language, urban structure, and set of technical solutions. It constructs a modern interpretation of a multicultural city in the former USSR. TMA is a good example of this intersection of cultures, where industrial building technology harmoniously blends with local traditional arts and figurative culture to produce an unprecedented outcome.

Criterion (iv): Tashkent Modernist Architecture is a successful experiment intertwining advanced modern technology with local know-how. Such a mix and reciprocity of influences allowed architects to design buildings at the cutting edge of modernity and technology of the time. These buildings embody innovative architectural elements from Europe, Russia, and the United States (prefabrication, curtain walls, building facilities), settlement, and typological features from Central Asia (such as roofs, courtyards, loggias, pandjara, etc.), ornament from Muslim visual culture (abstract geometrical motifs, colorful ceramic tiles, etc.), and integrate works of applied arts.

Statements of authenticity and/or integrity

Authenticity

The series' components are well-preserved and have retained the modernist features crucial to assess their significance. Many buildings are perfectly authentic since no later modification has yet occurred. Most buildings have maintained the same use they were initially designed for. Some have changed or updated their function, and adaptations primarily occurred to the interiors. However, later interventions surprisingly did not cancel out their modernist features but only concealed them under subsequent layers both inside and outside the buildings. Therefore, such hidden modernist features could be recovered using an intelligent restoration.

Most buildings have retained their complete authenticity on both an architectural and urban scale, since they have kept the original modernist conception and still play an active urban role in contemporary Tashkent. Sun Heliocomplex, the Palace of Aviation Constructors, Cosmonauts Metro Station, the Union of Artists and the TV Tower retain complete authenticity and integrity since no alteration occurred. Peoples’ Friendship Palace has also preserved authenticity at architectural, functional, and urban levels. No major renovations have occurred since the inauguration in 1981. The State Circus has also retained its character as both an individual architectural object and in terms of its urban role, thanks to the fact the building and its surroundings were only subjected to ordinary maintenance since their inauguration. Chorsu Bazaar retains its architectural character as an individual building and urban ensemble that fully maintains its vital function. Most original decorations and building materials are still intact and perfectly convey the complex's significance. The State Museum of the History of Uzbekistan has kept its authentic concept and fabric at both the architectural and urban scale. The Panoramic Cinema has maintained its urban character and still represents a hinge point within the city’s most central area. The iconic cylindrical volume has withstood the test of time and maintained a good level of integrity. The Zhemchug residential building has kept its authenticity. Self-constructed modifications by inhabitants represent a challenge to the social experiment Aydinova's project aimed to produce. The Museum of Arts of Uzbekistan and the Blue Domes Café have retained their character as an urban ensemble. The Uzbekistan Hotel has experienced transformation over the years, but the high-rise volume and iconic façade are fully intact and authentic. The House of Publishers maintains a high degree of authenticity and has kept its urban role as part of a modernist urban ensemble. 

Integrity

Overall, the series is fully representative of Tashkent Modernism and presents a high degree of integrity at both urban and architectural scales. In particular, the series components include all elements necessary to express its Outstanding Universal Value, and it is a complete representation of the features and process which convey the property’s significance. The series components do not suffer from alteration or adverse effects of development or neglect.

Comparison with other similar properties

Comparison with other WHS focusing on a series of 20th-century buildings.

Twentieth-century architecture is increasingly represented in the WHL, as several sites focusing on modernist architecture were listed in the last twenty years. This trend was confirmed by the launch of the Modern Heritage Programme in 2001, following the Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List (1994–2004). It aimed to increase attention on less represented areas and the heritage most at risk. Within this framework, the focus on modernist architecture was supported by a worldwide debate on how to assess the value of such recent heritage.

Many inscriptions focus on a single building and its distinctive role in the history of 20th-century architecture and society e.g. Schröder House (2000), Villa Tugendhat (2001), Sydney Opera House (2007), Fagus Factory in Alfeld (2011), Van Nelle Fabriek in Rotterdam (2014). Parallel to these icons, serial nominations consider a series of modernist buildings instead of a single masterpiece, since they represent the set of values pertaining to a phase of urban development of a city or region e.g. White City of Tel-Aviv – the Modern Movement (2003), Berlin Modernism Housing Estates (2006), Asmara: a Modernist African city (2017), Ivrea, Industrial City of the 20th Century (2018). In other cases, the WHL recognized the OUV of a set of buildings designed by a single master who thus left his footprint on social and urban development, e.g., Works of Antoni Gaudí (1984), Brasilia (1987), Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta in Brussels (1999), Le Havre, the City Rebuilt by Auguste Perret (2005), The Works of Jože Plečnik in Ljubljana – Human Centered Urban Design (2021). The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier, an Outstanding Contribution to the Modern Movement (transnational serial site, 2016) and The 20th-Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright (national serial site, 2019) testify how two great architects contributed to the global spread of the Modern Movement's ideals. Ensemble of Álvaro Siza's Architecture Works in Portugal (2017) and The Architectural Works of Alvar Aalto - a Human Dimension to the Modern Movement (2021) ultimately populated the Tentative List with a stimulating attempt to put forward a living architect's work and to define a thematic selection based on the Finnish master's legacy.

Compared to the sites mentioned above, Tashkent Modernist Architecture represents the Asian side of modernist architecture. Soviet modernism, like that of Europe and the United States, made a significant contribution to the history of modernization during the 20th century and left its footprint across the entire territory of the former USSR between Europe and Asia, representing 1/6 of the world.

Also, compared to these sites, Tashkent Modernist Architecture better represents the connection of a series of buildings with the urban design they were conceived within as a response to a natural disaster like the 1966 earthquake.

The sites mentioned above were crucial in recognizing the value of modernist heritage. After WWII, modernist architects were responsible for managing urban transformations, as well as designing new buildings, and they were thus highly committed to dealing with the legacy of previous centuries. However, this connection between history and modernist architecture deserves more representation in the WHL, since most inscriptions emphasize that modernity was a deliberate discontinuity with the past. To this end, and compared to the sites mentioned above, Tashkent Modernist Architecture better testifies to modernist architecture's ability to dialogue with history and adapt to local traditions.

Comparison with other serial sites possibly focusing on Soviet Modernism

Many capitals of Eastern Europe (Bucharest, Chișinău) and of the former Soviet republics, including the Caucasus (Tbilisi, Yerevan), the Baltic Region (Riga and Vilnius), and Central Asia (Almaty, Bishkek, Dushanbe), preserve important testimonies of modernist architecture from the late Soviet period.

Compared to former USSR capitals, Tashkent represents the most crucial experiment with size, since after WWII it was the fourth largest city after Moscow, Leningrad, and Kyiv, and with cultural self-representation, since its urban renewal was supported with more vigor and economic investment than any other city in the Eastern Bloc or the USSR. Tashkent’s architectural and urban experiment had an official mandate to be a model for Soviet capitals, and this allowed the city authorities to commission numerous innovative buildings and construct a high-quality urban fabric.

Compared to Slavic capitals Tashkent more clearly demonstrates the global impact of modernism as an encounter between global and local, between East and West. Compared to Eastern Europe, Central Asian and Caucasus architecture of the same period better testify to the flexibility of global modernism and the ability of modernist architects to interpret cultures and contexts that are rather distinct from Europe. Tashkent is an outstanding example of modernist architecture that successfully blended Soviet and Islamic cultures and their respective visual traditions.

Compared to Almaty and other capitals of Central Asia, which also preserve interesting evidence of Soviet modernist architecture, Tashkent is the largest and most ambitious example in terms of architectural innovation and representation, where a series of unique buildings rests on a robust urban design.