Automatic telephone station

Smolenska S. O. Preserve the monuments of constructivism in Ukraine (on the basis of unpublished archival materials). Modern problems of architecture and urban planning: Science and technology collection/ editor M. M. Demin. - K.: KNUBA, 2015. - Issue 41. - pp. 190-198.

One of the most significant examples of constructivism in Kharkiv is the telephone exchange building, which was erected in 1930-31 on the corner of Veterytarnaya (now Ivanova) and Dzerzhynskoho (now Myronositska) streets in the immediate vicinity of the new city centre, Dzerzhynskoho Square. Widespread urban telephonisation was an advanced phenomenon of its time. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, automatic telephone exchanges were built in major cities of Ukraine: at that time, the capital Kharkiv, Dnipro, and Odesa. The progressive type of building required a new architectural, compositional and structural design. That is why automatic telephone exchanges acquired a modern constructivist look. 

In Kharkiv, it was planned to build two automatic telephone exchanges (Nahirna and Tsentralna) with 20,000 numbers each, as the semi-automatic exchange with 6,000 numbers built in the early 1920s did not meet the growing needs of the capital (in 1930, there was one telephone per 105 inhabitants).

The most important part of the plan was the automation of telephone service. This complex technical operation was carried out on 5 June 1933: "a complete switchover to automatic telephone service for all the city's subscribers was made for the first time in Europe," wrote the Communist newspaper.

It should be noted that until the early 200s the building still retained its constructivist features, although the need to expand it arose several times. In the 1960s, the 4th floor balcony was built up very carefully, with strict preservation of the building's style (architect I. Lavrentiev). In the 1970s, a project was developed to develop the northern wing by lengthening the façade to preserve the style (architect N. Yevsikov), but the plan was not implemented.

During the field survey of the building after its last reconstruction, as well as in conversations with the designers, it turned out that they did not conduct preliminary research and did not base their design decisions on archival documentation. As a result, not only did the interiors of the building lose their style features, but the facades also received details that were not typical of the object, and false materials were used in their decoration: polished granite, plastic, etc. The building grew by one additional floor, finally losing its original proportions. 

Thanks to the documents found in the archives, the question of the object's authorship has been clarified to some extent (although not completely). The most authoritative researcher of Kharkiv, O.Y. Leibfreid, noted that the author of the telephone exchange project is unknown. S.O. Khan-Magomedov, a recognised expert on the "Soviet avant-garde", in his work on Russian constructivist theory and practice, identifies several objects built in Ukraine, including the Kharkiv telephone exchange. He attributed the design to the architect P. Frolov. A multi-volume publication on the history of Ukrainian art claims that the telephone exchange building was built according to a reuse project without mentioning the author.

According to archival materials, the drawings bear the names of two developers - architects whose signatures are affixed to the sheets: Pokorny (without initials) and Yu. Judging by other projects developed by the Ukrpaybud office in those years and found in the archive, these architects were co-authors of other buildings, including the Fertiliser Research Institute in Zmiiv (1929). The architect P. Frolov also worked at Ukrpaibud at the time.  He signed the design materials of the institute in Zmiiv as the chief engineer. However, his signature is not on any of the drawings of the automatic telephone exchange. In Kharkiv in those years, the architect M.F. Pokorny (1886-1948) taught at Kharkiv universities and was engaged in design practice. In 1929, he was already a venerable designer. It's hard to believe that he could only carry out the working documentation of someone else's project. His son A. Pokornyi also worked at Ukrpaibud in the same years. It can be argued that Yu. Tsvetkov and Pokorny (whether father or son - this remains to be established) were the authors of the drawings for the telephone exchange on Ivanova Street. It is too early to say whether anyone else was the author of the sketch.