Особливості архітектури залізничних вокзалів Закарпаття

Abstract

Архітектурно-просторові та композиційно-стилістичні особливості формування залізничних вокзалів Закарпаття розглянуто на тлі історичних і територіальних передумов. Проводиться порівняння вокзалів та пасажирських будівель з іншою громадською та житловою забудовою. The clear majority of railway stations and passenger facilities of Transcarpathia are historical, reasonably provide the needs of transportation and reflect interaction between different geographic, technical, temporal, political, stylistic, and other factors of their formation. They represent an important part of the architectural heritage of the region and therefore require professional study, protection and adjust to the needs of the recent time. The architecture of the early period of railway station building links Transcarpathia of 1870th with royal and Hungarian influences at the time of the Habsburg monarchy; postwar architecture of the mid-twentieth century links with the totalitarian Soviet era and serial pavilion links it with passenger facilities of other parts of Ukraine. Compositional and stylistic types of buildings create colorful palette and the most significant are railway stations performed on typical projects for the Royal Hungarian railways and the postwar Soviet classical railways. Typical for Transcarpathia are small-sized asymmetrical station building with declivous roofs, and sometimes with canopies or arched galleries. It is likely that they imitated the building of passenger station Karpaty/Carpathians built by the architectural motives of nearby located palace of former Count Schönborn of the turn of the ХІХ–ХХ centuries near Svalyava (now the sanatorium Karpaty). Part of the railway station buildings are unique and combined with some typical groups (Karpaty, Rakhiv, Uzhgorod, Yasinya). Recent decades show fragmentarity of some passenger facilities and railway station buildings (Velykyi Bereznyj, Uzhgorod, Chop/Tchop), relatively good care of smaller and degradation of unharmed railway branches (Solotvyno – Velykyi Bychkiv, all the forest mountain narrow-gauge railways except part of Borzhava railway) and some passenger facilities (Dobrosillya). The selectivity in building and maintenance of the proper technical condition of railway stations and passenger facilities, providing service is biased – disrespect and indifference to the peripheral objects during costly characteristics of the ‘main’. The existing railway infrastructure including railway stations and passenger facilities is a good precondition for more active railway communication through Galicia with most of the Ukraine, and with Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. Investigated multinational empires of Transcarpathian railways should ensure both local and transit transportation and promote communication of people in the latest realities of Ukraine and rest of Europe. In this case, railway station buildings should keep the architectural identity of the region.