Architects Viktor Kokorin, Giorgi Lezhava, Vladimer Nasaridze
Design and construction 1933-1938, 1946-1953
Status Cultural Heritage Monument, 2007
Original function The Government Palace of the Georgian SSR
Current function Georgian Parliament Building
Condition refurbished
Address 8 Shota Rustaveli Avenue, Tbilisi
Google maps
The Government Palace of the Georgian SSR in Tbilisi was constructed in two phases. The upper part was completed in 1935 according to the project of the Russian Soviet architect Viktor Kokorin with the participation of Giorgi Lezhava. The lower, main building was finished in 1953 based on the design of Kokorin and Lezhava with contributions of Vladimer Nasaridze. The first one was intended to house various ministries and other governmental institutions, while the lower part accomodated the Council of Ministers and the Supreme Council with the Congress Hall. The complex spans an entire block on Rustaveli Avenue between Zubalashvili Brothers (formerly Atarbegov), 9 April (formerly Chitadze) and Chichinadze streets. The site, along with the development and realisation of this project, carries a deeply sensitive professional, socio-political, and emotional significance. This is more than just an architectural endeavor. It is also about the generative urban force that shapes a place, breathes life into it and influences the formation of its identity.
The Site
The development of the area was linked to the north-western expansion of the city at the beginning of the 19th century and the establishment of a new center planned by the local administration of the Russian Empire. At that time, this place was still a suburb. In one of the first urban development plans from 1802, it is mentioned as a ‘government place’. By the end of the 19th century, the viceroy’s palace, the arsenal, the guardhouse, the printing works and other buildings of the imperial administration were already located here. There was also a classical gymnasium, theatres, museums, tenement houses, hotels, shops and other buildings. The continuation of Yerevan (Freedom) Square and Palace and Golovin (Rustaveli) Streets became the new administrative and cultural centre of the city of Tbilisi. The open space northeast of the Arsenal, between the viceroy’s palace and the classical gymnasium, was called Ghunib Square (Гунибская площадь). The name is associated with the takeover of the Ghunib fortress in Dagestan (North Caucasus) by Russia in 1859 and the capture of Imam Shamil. In this square, in 1897, a Russian Military Temple was built, dedicated to the end of the Russian-Caucasian War (1864) and the final conquest of the Caucasus. A massive, dominant structure (Architect: David Grimm) appears on the main street of Tbilisi, symbolizing the military glory of the Russian Empire and the defeat and humiliation of all the Caucasian peoples. After the collapse of the empire and the establishment of Soviet dictatorship in Russia, when the free, democratic Republic of Georgia was again attacked by the Red Army, some of the cadets who died in the fight for freedom in February 1921 were, for reasons unknown, buried in the courtyard of this church. After the Bolsheviks came to power in Georgia, all signs of the cemetery were initially erased, and when the church was demolished in 1930, the graves vanished without a trace. There is no mention in Georgian art history literature that would justify preserving the church or deem its architecture valuable. Churches dedicated to Alexander Nevsky, often viewed as symbols of the empire, were built in several cities from Sofia in Bulgaria to Chita in Siberia, typically following the similar design but attributed to different architects. A temple built in such a conventional style—both aesthetically and ideologically unsuitable for Georgia—had no place on Rustaveli Avenue.
In 1932, it was decided to build the Government Palace of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic on this square. The construction of public buildings was one of the most important components of the ‘socialist re-organisation’ of the old cities. They were assigned socio-political functions and an active urban planning role. 1932 was a year of significant changes–the Soviet government banned all free creative associations, including those of architects, founded the Union of Soviet Architects (1934 in Georgia) and forced almost all architects to join it. This would help by monitoring the implementation of the party line in socialist construction and to make it ideologically infallible. The plan was to create a new style of architecture, socialist realism, which was to be ‘socialist in content and national in form’. At the time, nobody knew what this actually meant. Simultaneously, all existing avant-garde movements were banned and declared to be bourgeois remnants.
The entire history of the planning and construction of the Government Palace lasted exactly as long as this period of Soviet architecture existed. The building is a living embodiment of this process. The first stages of the design fell into the transition period between two eras – the time of searching for a style. The Government Palace was inaugurated on February 25, 1953, the 32nd anniversary of the violent establishment of Soviet power in Georgia. Just one week later, Stalin’s death marked the end of an era, and shortly thereafter, this chapter of architectural history was interrupted as abruptly as it had begun. What remains is an urban and architectural legacy, the research, critical engagement, and evaluation of which is necessary and intriguing in every respect.
Viktor Kokorin
Viktor Kokorin wrote in 1934 that the People’s Commissariat of Georgia (the same Council of Ministers), when it awarded the commission, ‘approached the question of nationality in architecture with extreme care and deliberation. On the one hand, it demanded the necessary development of the entire project in the spirit of national architectural motifs. On the other hand, I was clearly given to understand that it was unnecessary to speak of an established national Georgian style in architecture, and that it would therefore be correct to look for national features in the solution of the project, i.e. only for some basic characteristics of the style and not for a style in the literal sense of the word. In order to study the compositional and structural features of Georgian architecture, Kokorin travelled to Georgia, where he identified key methods that influenced the design integrity of buildings. Using the Jvari Monastery as a case study, he examined the relationship between the axis of the main entrance and the axis of the temple entrance, which created an interesting perspective effect. According to Kokorin, this observation influenced the planning of the inner courtyards in his own project.
To gain a deeper understanding of Georgian culture, Kokorin explored various aspects, including Georgian theatre (Sandro Akhmeteli), literature (Shota Rustaveli), art (Gudiashvili and others), and the influence of Persian culture on Georgia. He supported the idea of incorporating certain aspects of Georgian architectural heritage from past centuries into his work. However, the key question was how, to what extent, and for what specific purposes these elements should be used. According to Kokorin, the fusion of national elements with classical architecture in his project is primarily reflected in the core compositional and planning principles that shape the evolution of architectural forms. He believed that the issues of stylization and the critical, creative approach to the national style were complex and highly relevant. In his view, stylization could only serve as a decorative element if it was compatible with modern building materials, rather than being treated as an archaeological relic.
In the same article, Kokorin praises the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright, who reportedly often incorporated elements from Aztec pyramid architecture into his designs. “He creates fascinating buildings with bold solutions and exceptional constructions. Yet, one cannot help but think that the Aztec architects were true innovators in their own right, while Wright was more of a cultural stylist.“ If we examine this significant statement closely, we can sense the challenge faced by architects under the state’s pressure, and how offensive it might have been to some educated, cultured, and talented professionals to have to create an architectural style dictated by party officials. At the end of the article, Kokorin almost sarcastically remarks that Soviet architects are now being instructed to draw from the historical heritage of Asia, Persia, and India, which, while worthy of careful study, “Indian architecture, with its curvilinear, baroque motifs and wealth of sculptures, is far removed from our own”.
It is questionable whether the Greco-Roman classical heritage, Palladianism, Art Deco, or Empire styles truly aligned with the organic aesthetic needs of the proletariat. Yet, it was from these styles that the ‘socialist content’ was to emerge, adorned with details borrowed from the historical architecture of various nations to create a ‘national form.’ According to Kokorin, in each case, the architect’s culture and talent as a skilled imitator and stylist were decisive factors.
The history of the Government Palace project was a long and difficult ‘birth,’ involving a vast number of people—not just architects—over many years. The competition process was unprecedented and unfolded almost like the plot of a TV series
The Competitions
In 1932, a competition was announced for the design of the Government Palace. A special committee was formed, including an authoritative jury (Shchusev, Vesnin, and others), as well as an advisory board with the participation of Georgian architects, artists, and art historians. Once the program was approved, only Moscow-based architects were invited to take part in the competition: Viktor Kokorin, Sergei Chernyshev, and Ivan Zholtovsky’s group, which included Sergei Kozhin, Giorgi Golts, Mikhail Parusnikov, and Ivan Sobolev. Notably, the central government tasked architects unfamiliar with Georgia to create an architecture that was entirely new to the country, but still ‘national in form’.
The first stage of the competition ended with the win of Kokorin’s project, despite a storm of criticism over the ‘remnants of constructivism.’ Throughout the process, the size of the territory was changed twice. Initially, the project area was much larger, including both the plot of the first school and the upper quarter between Atarbegov (Zubalashvili brothers) and Dzerzhinsky (Pavel Ingorokva) streets.
During the competition, the projects were discussed so intensively by councillors and citizens that, as Nodar Janberidze writes, “the design of the Georgian Government House became a truly public affair”. It’s interesting to note Kokorin’s attitude toward this popular movement, which prevailed in all stages of the competition despite various criticisms. In Principles of Architectural Creativity, he wrote that great and magnificent socialist architecture, which should be understandable to the ordinary masses, could be created through collective co-creation!
In the second phase, in 1933, Kokorin presented a revised version. At the same time, the young architect Mikheil Tchikvadze designed his own version of the project on his own initiative. He was not invited, but his project was nevertheless discussed and was not considered problem-solving, even though it contained interesting details.
The third phase of the competition involved the presentation of Kokorin’s project, which had been revised for the third time at the end of 1933. It was during this revision that the idea of a transverse axis and propylaea was introduced for the first time. The project was approved and authorized, but it was still considered necessary to continue working on the façades. At this stage, after Kokorin’s project had been approved, Mikheil Chkhikvadze submitted a second proposal, which he had worked on with artists Davit Kakabadze and Lado Gudiashvili, along with architect Khimshiashvili.
After all this, the competition committee called on the public to contribute to the development of the façades based on Kokorin’s approved project. The goal was to create a truly socialist content and national forms, and the project’s creator had to be ‘supported’ by the entire country. The architects of the projects submitted for consideration in April 1934 were: Chkhikvadze (2 projects), Janelidze and Urushadze, Tavadze, Kalgin, Deryabin, the artist Sidamon-Eristavi, the Union of Artists, the Union of Architects (Zaalishvili) and a group of architects – Neprintsev, Kalashnikov, Tulashvili and Japaridze.
Construction of the upper B building was already in progress when the competition entered its fourth phase, in which eight projects took part. The projects discussed at the end of 1934 were by Kokorin, Neprintsev, Janelidze, Urushadze (these four were to continue the work in the fifth phase), Kalashnikov, Chkhikvadze and Tavadze and others. The fifth phase also included the engineer Lentovsky’s project.
In the fifth phase, Giorgi Lezhava was involved in Kokorin’s project, a collaboration that lasted until its completion and played a crucial role in its development. Although Kokorin’s project (with Lezhava’s contribution) was approved at this stage, the competition was temporarily suspended because the general public’s perception of the façades was still considered unsatisfactory.
Construction of the upper building was completed in 1938. The Second World War interrupted the project, but in 1946, something surprising happened: instead of continuing with the approved design, the government commissioned Archil Kurdiani to create a new project for the main building without holding a competition.
The new government requirements changed the size of the site—the First School remained untouched, and the new building was to be placed between Chitadze and Chichinadze streets. For the first time, the height of the building was also limited. However, Kurdiani’s project was deemed unsatisfactory, so the government was forced to organize a new competition.
The following architects participated in this competition for the lower, main building: Archil Kurdiani and Mikheil Melia with Ketevan Sokolova-Porakishvili — three variants; Mikheil Neprintsev — one variant; Ivane Chkhenkeli — two variants; Mikheil Shavishvili — three variants; and Kokorin and Lezhava — one. As expected, Kokorin and Lezhava won again, and their project was approved for construction
The Government Palace
The Government Palace was the largest public building in Georgia at the time (total volume 136,000 m3). Its realisation required complex, coordinated work involving many union-wide and local planning and construction organisations (the Moscow ‘Giprogorstroy’, the specially founded ‘Saksasakhlemsheni’ in Tbilisi and others). A test laboratory for new building materials was even set up on the construction site. Of particular interest were lightweight concrete constructions, which were used for the first time for the floor decks. The standard building materials were monolithic reinforced concrete and bricks. Local natural stone was used for the cladding – Kursebi teshenite, Bolnisi tuff, Sadakhlo, Lopota, Shrosha and Svaneti marbles, etc. The complex terrain of the site–a height difference of 22 metres between Rustaveli Avenue and Atarbegov Street–was one of the decisive factors in the overall planning.
The main difference between the upper and lower buildings is that they were designed and constructed at different times. The upper building can be considered a product of the transitional period, as its façades still bear signs of constructivism, for which it was criticized. The building encloses an inner courtyard on three sides, which opens onto Rustaveli Avenue. The floor plans follow a simple layout: on the ground floor, where the entrances are located along the inner walls of the arch, there is a long vestibule and a staircase. On the typical floors, the ministers’ offices are placed in the corners, with other offices lining the corridors. This layout is maintained, with minor variations, on all floors. At the top of the arch, there are conference rooms on two floors.
Seen from Atarbegov (Zubalashvili Brothers) Street, the building stands seven storeys high. In the centre of the façade is the main portal: a three-storey rectangular opening, an arch that lies on the central axis and opens onto the courtyard. Interestingly, it is only one storey high on the courtyard side. The façade is vertically divided by two-storey rows of pilasters, which are statically functionless. The glazed verticals of the stairwells add a sense of lightness to the simple, proportional façade. Its symmetry is subtly broken by the outer corners: clad in tufa on the right-hand side and simply plastered on the left. The hierarchy of the two side streets influences the design of the side façades. Chichinadze Street is narrower, so this façade is relatively simple. It repeats the vertical articulation of the main façade and includes a basement, clad in large teschenite stones. Due to the relief, the basement rises up to two storeys. On the other hand, Chitadze Street is wider, and its façade is more prominent. It includes more decorative elements, such as a two-storey-high arched and columned loggia.
On the courtyard side, the main axis is accentuated by the propylaea and the staircase. In contrast to the exterior façades, the courtyard façades are adorned with more elaborate detailing—featuring wall ornaments, arches, columns, capitals, and more. The wide staircase gradually narrows as it rises, enhancing the sense of perspective before leading into the propylaea, which functions as a transitional space. The terraced courtyard, with its fountains and lawns, along with the arched galleries along the side façades, was clearly visible from Rustaveli Avenue. For nearly a decade, it served as the temporary yet impressive main façade of the Government Palace.
After the construction of the lower, main part at the Rustaveli Avenue, this view disappeared and the whole building took on the shape of a perimeter block. It encloses the system of courtyards, stands on a plinth several metres above Rustaveli Avenue and is connected to the street level by terraced lawns and stairs. The axis that starts from the middle of the upper building is completed and connects to the entrance in the centre of the lower building. This virtual axis is continuous along its entire length and should ideally be fully visible from Rustaveli to Atarbegov Street.
The ground floor plan of the lower building, which is actually reminiscent of the layout of the Athenian Propylaea, consists of two identical, axially symmetrical rectangular volumes, with columns both in front of and between the two structures. The two volumes are united at the level of the fifth floor. The right wing housed the Council of Ministers, while the left wing was dedicated to the Supreme Council. Both sections feature grand entrances from the central open courtyard, which includes a fountain, leading through the columns of the propylaea. The Council of Ministers’ offices are arranged around a square vestibule, which rises 22 meters high and is naturally lit from the ceiling. Above the vestibule of the Supreme Council, which is topped with a cross vault, sits a large conference hall.
These two volumes are not visible on the main façade. The front wall of the building which unites all elements, consists of a single, tufa-clad surface into which arches are cut. The columns are sparingly decorated with elements inserted in their corners. Behind the arches is an open gallery four storeys high with a cross vault ceiling. The gallery has no function, especially as the north-facing façade does not require any shading. The façade is crowned by a kind of curved tympanum with the coat of arms of the Georgian SSR and other reliefs. Today, some of the Soviet symbols no longer exist. After the tragedy of 9 April 1989, the cast-iron statues of Valentin Topuridze and Shota Mikatadze ‘Labour, Science, Technology’, which had stood on high pedestals on either side of the staircase since 1958, were also removed.
In the side streets, the upper and lower buildings are positioned next to each other in such a way that their different characters are clearly visible. The side façades of the lower building are identical on both sides. Their surfaces are structured by flat decorative round arches and pilasters.
As previously noted, the architecture of the upper building is defined by its modesty, simple forms, and minimal decoration. The design and construction of the lower building began after the war, by which time the era of gigantomania had already taken root in Soviet architecture. Thanks to the culture, talent, and expertise of the architects, the government palace stands out with its well-proportioned design, the harmonious balance between its individual elements and the overall structure. Despite the grandeur typical of the time, its decoration remains relatively restrained and the volumes of the building fit together seamlessly on the complex site. Decorative accents are concentrated primarily in the inner courtyards and interior spaces. The portals, columns, and capitals are richly adorned with stylized motifs drawn from medieval Georgian church architecture, some of which take on a slightly grotesque character, particularly when paired with the five-pointed star, hammer, and sickle. The lavish, colorful marble-lined floors, columns, staircases, railings, and other interior elements exude a sense of opulence that feels excessive and, from today’s perspective, raises an unsettling question: What did the ruling elite of Georgia do to deserve such a ‘palace’ since its completion in 1958? “
The Parliament of Georgia
In 1935, Viktor Kokorin wrote, “The widening of the avenue in front of the palace will create a space for mass gatherings, demonstrations, etc.” Little did he know that the May Day parades, once organized by the government, would eventually be replaced by anti-Soviet protests calling for independence. It is here that the blood of the Georgian people, fighting for freedom, would be shed. Sadly, this struggle is not over—it continues into the twenty-first century. All that worries and hurts us, all that fuels our anger and continues to draw brutal persecution, gathers us here in this square.
Today, the square is disfigured by a project from an unknown designer, executed without a competition. The aggressive, tapered lawns surrounded by high walls of rusty iron are presented as landscaping, but in reality, they serve to reduce the square’s open space. Access to the current parliament is completely obstructed by multilayered protective structures, and one of the central elements of the architectural and urban planning concept—the penetrating spatial axis—is now entirely lost. The classical heritage that Soviet architecture of the time sought to emulate was rooted in the transparency of public life and state functions, with public buildings often framed by columned open galleries and propylaea used as entrance spaces. Kokorin and Lezhava understood this well. They paid great attention to details like how the evening sunlight would pass through the entrance opening from Atarbegov Street, stretch across the entire axis, and land on the north side of the building facing Rustaveli Avenue…(ntch)
Photos: National Library, Cronobook, National Archives of Georgia, Nodar Janberidze, Nikoloz Jashi, Dmitry Ermakov, Wikimedia Commons, Yuri Rost, Koba Tsakadze, Ana Chumburidze, Daro Sulakauri
Literature/Links
Authors’ Collective, Works of Architectural Studios. Vol. 2. Studio N° 10, 1936 (rus) Работы архитектурных мастерских. Т 2. мастерская N° 10, 1936
Kokorin, Viktor. The Palace of the Government of the Georgian SSR. (rus) Дворец правительства ССР Грузии, Архитектура СССР, 8 -11, 1934
Janberidze, Nodar. The Architecture of the Government House of the Georgian SSR, (geo) “Khelovneba,” Tbilisi, 1957
Jashi, Nikoloz. The Architecture of the Government House of the Georgian SSR.(rus) Архитектура СССР, 8.1954
Rekhviashvili, Jimsher. The Soboro That Stood in Place of the Parliament: Monstrous in Its Appearance and Essence, (geo) 26.2021, Radio Liberty