Imagining Shtromka / city- - -city trip
As part of the studio, we traveld through wider Estonia to situate the research in a regional context and reflect on how processes of urbanisation, observed in Shtromka, manifest equally at local and national levels and throughout temporalities.
During our bus journeys, we used the time to discuss a wide range of topics related to Shtromka in a broader context (as can be seen in the schedule below). At the same time, on-board publications were written, which can be read in their raw format on this page.
source: own photos/ recordings, 2025
source: own photos/ recordings, 2025
source: own photos/ recordings, 2025
source: own photos/ recordings, 2025
source: own photos/ recordings, 2025
source: own photos/ recordings, 2025
source: own photos/ recordings, 2025
source: own photos/ recordings, 2025
source: own photos/ recordings, 2025
conversation about Estonia’s ‘manor age’, pre-industrial economy, landholfings and ownership, national heritage
On-board publishsing
Alex&Luca - Heritage on the example of manors First associations we have about manors:
Rural class (struggle), (pre-) industrialisation, example in Germany: Krupp villa by Essen - factory owner, earlier landowners
manor system:
system of landownership, people living on their land contribute labour; “on every hill a manor” (now over 2.000 in Estonia); start of manors: 13th century, Beginning of the Manor as defensive fortress structure, developed into a more representative character.
German Influence during and after occupation:
Germans brought the manor system to Estonia.
Still feel the german influence in the Estonian language, still some German surnames (estonified) elites ruled the landscapes (local authority- centralisation of power- Early form of urbanisation).
18th/19th century: peak of manor house construction/ development - ideal of colonial heritage of the Germans (Estonia didn’t have colonies, so the manors/ manor system organised the hinterland providing both resources and labour for industrialising cities (early tenancy system- economic predominance).
Declining manor system:
Surge of capitalism introduced money/ private capital into the economic system, reducing the dependence on labour obligations as the main mean of currency.
With industrialisation and capitalism the manor system declined due to national awakening (rebellion against the oppressive system of the manors), and probably also growing cities because of factory workers moving closer.
National awakening ~1905 also sparked insurgence against mostly German landowners and their primary symbols of power: the manor houses; burning them down etc.
State socialism:
In rural areas: Manors were nationalised and became schools, community centers, used as recreational areas (part of public life, not exclusive aristocratic symbols anymore) - man made, curated gardens (forest were not for strolling around - unsafe)
(Links to contemporary movement towards the opposite: trend of people enjoying the natural environment)
Safety is a different topic today You find safety (example cultural spaces for minorities in periphery)
Post Stalin era:
Focus on maximum functionality and in providing good housing + services; but also resurgence in popularity of manors: hundreds have been renovated.
In the present day, manors have, again, become a symbol of wealth & the ones left are considered “authentic”.
Very functional buildings - renovation of manors - nostalgia-paradox Estonian national, cultural heritage, shift in meaning from German suppression culture - create hubs for tourism (used as spa, hotel…) - they become private again.
Preservation and heritage:
Preservation of authenticity - what does that mean? Should they even be preserved? How? Should those monuments be returned to the people and shift their meaning to a story of public power instead of a status symbol? thoughts: They are charged with meaning and become a political tool.
Preservation means remembering the unchangeable past.
How is Shtromka connected to these preservation ideas? Should it be preserved? Should it be under national heritage protection?
At Kaagvere manor
Kavershof 1644, “oversaw” six villages in the area, later nationalised after Estonian independence and land reform: became a home for mothers and infants, brewery,
Destroyed 1944 by bombings, rebuilt in different form on the fundament.
Presently many manors are up for sale and rent for cheap, taking them down and rebuilding/ new build is often cheaper.
A manor is always multiple buildings.
conversation about ‘Old Believers,’ powerful institutions,
minorities, subsistence economy, borders, cultural heritage,
touristification
On-board publishing
Helka&Kata - On the Way to Lake PeipusLake Peipus:
Lake Peipus is a natural border between Estonia and Russia.
It’s a historically symbolic place, often used as a metaphor for the meeting between East and West.
The lake is famous for the “Battle on the Ice”, where Alexander Nevsky led Russian forces to victory against the Teutonic Order.
Sergei Eisenstein, the “King of Editing” (1930s–40s), portrayed this event in his film Alexander Nevsky, showing the battle on frozen water, the contrast of good East vs. bad West, and heroic images of the Russian landscape with human faces.
The “Battle on the Ice” has been interpreted as a parallel to WWII, representing Russia’s defense against Western aggression.
The Old Believers:
In 17th century, the Russian Orthodox Church underwent modernization:
Religious hierarchy was restructured,
Church rituals and icons were slightly changed,
Catherine the Great continued this process, aiming to centralize power,
valued tradition, hard work, and religious purity,
refused modernization and saw it as moral decline.
Life and Traditions:
Many Old Believer villages formed along the shores of Lake Peipus.
These communities kept their traditions, language, and religion alive: Fishing and onion growing, onion pies.
Baptisms were performed from boats on the lake.
Lights burning in front of icons symbolized both faith and cautious modernization.
Symbols:
Instead of a cross, they often used a rooster, referencing:
1. You will betray me before the rooster crows.
2. The early awakening
Social and Economic Structure
Followed a subsistence economy: producing only what they needed.
Independence from external systems, but also meant dependency on nature and seasonal cycles.
They lived according to the rhythm of the seasons, which shaped their worldview and work ethic.
Main value was hard work and responsibility to family and community.
Some converted to Orthodox Christianity to gain access to land ownership, since land belonged mostly to German landlords.
Soviet Era and Later Developments,
land was nationalized and wealth redistributed Collectivization forced many families to relocate, about 5–7% of land was taken, not a large number, but the memory remains strong.
Huge migration within the USSR, and after its collapse, families were divided across new borders.
Old Believer traditions and ice fishing survived.
Today, only a few fishermen still work these waters, often from Old Believer families, outsiders are rarely allowed to fish there
region is now being promoted for tourism.
Villages have become a mix of summer houses, elderly residents, and descendants of Old Believers.
Many Old Believers have moved to Tartu but maintain strong family ties and a sense of responsibility toward one another.
After 1981, movement between Estonia and Russia became restricted, requiring visas.
Old Believers remain in-between people between East and West, tradition and modernity.
Their isolation once protected them, helping them preserve their culture.
Their history reflects resistance, adaptation, and survival at the margins of empire and state.
conversation about architecture and the making of society,
cooperative agriculture, commons, terrain vague/shrinking
preconditions of urbanisation, climate urbanism
On-board publishing
Clara&Hasan - We drove from Varnja to Äski talking about the ice age and the impact on urbanization. And the community organized and centralised agriculture in former Soviet times.- Recent ghost town is growing in estonia
- But before people love to stay with a big community
- Housing have facilities that satisfies their needs
- capitalism changes this many people assume
- But in general change is not a neutral thing so it's normal the change happened.
- Architecture also shapes society.
- Nowadays: Soviet area + labour + commons shrinking
- Äksi > Polzama in former years 1582
- 480 people in 2011 only 48 people
- Estonia was covered by ice → ice age whole part
- Continental ice 12.600 years ago
- Ice = no settlement
- Landscape shaped by movement of glacier → hills, bog, mushy ground
- Development of the Urbanization and vegetation linked as a precondition to the ice age
- Climate conditions to farm things
- Climate change create difficult situation for people
- Urban age” physical and social change with public demand
- Climate change: one country uses oil it effects a whole system the whole world
- Planetary Urbanization: everything is influenced by urbanization
- Planetary urbanization” is consider for all the country and think about the movement
- Urbanization → not only the movement → its a two way direction and it manifest in different ways
- Beginning of soviet union > revolution 1861
- Hart struct rules
- Socialist revolution: bad conditions in factories in agricultural
- Farming technic primitive (ineffective)
- Training to industrialise and movement to cities
- Centralised agriculture
- Collective farms
- Nationalision
- Distribution wealth and take things away
- Technocratic belief: how much does this territory give us milk etc. → no reality (weather conditions)
- Same todays: EU to global south
- Industrialized the agriculture
- Common field and allowed to have animals for your own
- Avantgarde
- Plan of common farms: they look urban, like big villages with centered > no old traditions and vibes
- Soviet bloc
- Avantgarde: forward looking new estonia estate
- Where ever you live you have always exit > lot of ghost towns
- Shared labour, live together and leisure time > almost family > secure
- Some are Nostalgic about the living conditions/ models
- Socialism = connection
- How architecture structure how we interact > it is never neutral > how we perceive
- Socialist revolution
- Farming techniques in soviet time was slow but tries to industrialize
- Then tries to centralize the farms
- But recent time EU help farmers
- And mostly work in common fields
- Land divided in e agriculture style
- Recent ghost town is growing in estonia
- But before people love to stay with a big community
- Housing have facilities that satisfies their needs
- capitalism changes this many people assume
- But in general change is not a neutral thing so it's normal the change happened.
- Architecture also shapes society.