In Defence of the Faceless, the Generic, and the Mundane - Examination of late Soviet Modernist mass housing in context of Moscow Demolitions

Introduction

Socialist architecture, in particular the industrialised mass housing, has recently become the subject of various concerns, debates and interventions, which spark social reactions and inspire the countless newspaper headlines. The contradictory, but unique phenomenon of Soviet social housing appears to have infinite potential for dividing people on political, aesthetic and emotional basis. USSR architecture, seen by many as a symbol of both the suppression, and dejection of individualism, had also took on the responsibility of fulfilling a colossal social role, settling tens of millions families with their own apartments. Monolithic, massive in scale yet after decades of sub-par maintenance and far past their expiration date these concrete giants are now ephemeral in their mode of existence. The endangered world, full of stories, myths and secrets, heroes and villains, encompassed within the modular panelled walls of these residences, still plays an important social role as housing for the dissonant collective memory and culture.

It is important to note that bot demolition and construction events are merely snapshots in the life expansive life cycle of a building, that miss a lot of what makes these objects into places they are. These snapshots are a view into the Soviet principles and ideology. And with the (2017) Moscow demolition campaign, starting to take effect, we are prompted to rethink our relationship with the post-war social housing, as we are approaching the next turning point in the life cycle in Socialist prefabricated mass housing.

How does a culture grapple with the tangible qualities, and the flaws of post-war social housing, while recognising the intangible impact on the collective memories they hold; and what can we learn from the layers ideological footprint contained within these controversial architectural objects about the Soviet decisions and the slew of unintended consequences they carried.

1. Birth & Death

Ravaged by WW2 and Joseph Stalin’s rule Soviet cities were facing an unprecedented housing crisis. Determined by the pompously opulent Postconstructivist (Stalinist Neoclassical) architecture, the spatial forms of Moscow’s inner city were unprepared for the industrialising (and therefore urbanising) post-war USSR landscape.^[Snopek, Belyayevo Forever, 24.] The elimination of the housing shortage, which began with the collectivisation and active industrialisation in the 1930s, was one of the main priorities of the so-called Khrushchev Thaw.^[Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’.]

Intelligentsia- intellectuals or highly educated people as a group, especially when regarded as possessing culture and political influence.

Stalin’s classical forms (today listed for preservation),^[Kommersant, ‘Archnadzor Prosit Ne Priravnivat’’.] were either used by the Inteligencia as an exclusive ‘gift’ from the authorities, or were transformed into post-war kommunalki. These apartments would house between 2-7 families, where each family got a room and shared the rest of space communally.^[Harris, Communism on tomorrow street, 71.] In either case, the housing solution they provided was suboptimal for the existing population, so when arriving into the position of a Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev was greeted with the residual housing deficits exacerbated under the Stalinist regime in need of resolving.

kommunalka (pl. kommunalki) - communal apartment, that appeared after October Revolution as a response to housing deficits.

A year after his coming to power, on December 7, 1954, Khrushchev appeared at the descriptively named National Conference of Builders, Architects, Workers in Construction Materials and Manufacture of Construction and Roads Machinery Industries, and Employees of Design and Research and Development Organisations to deliver a secret speech On the extensive introduction of industrial methods and improving the quality of, and reducing the cost of, construction. The existing housing issue, coupled with the death of the supreme idol, and the de-Stalinisation brought by Khrushchev’s Thaw, which had pardoned up to 2 million political prisoners, meant inevitable general uprising, if left unaddressed.^[The number of rehabilitated prisoners in the years 1953-1957 ranges between 300,000-2,000,000 depending on the source. Fogelson, ‘Architectural Changes Throughout the Soviet Union: How Soviet-Era buildings act as a visual timeline of the USSR’; Snopek, Belyayevo Forever, 24.] The solution of the catastrophic housing conditions became the highest priority and would require the use of most unconventional and innovative means. The 20th Congress of CPSU of 1956 set the task of finally ending the housing shortage in the following 20 years.

CPSU - acronym for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Honesty in construction, and material expression which contributed to the sameness of earliest industrially produced mass housing, were presented as positive qualities not only from the pragmatic angle of production, but also in the symbolic sense of rejection of ornamentalism plaguing the bourgeois housing of Stalin period.^[Victor Buchli, ‘Khrushchev, Modernism, and the Fight against “Petit-Bourgeois” Consciousness in the Soviet Home’, Journal of Design History 10, no. 2 (1997).]

Soviet mass social housing, famous for its efforts in standardising and industrialising the production of residential architecture, has been in USSR’s toolkit long before 1954, used to construct cheap wooden and brick barracks for the optimal harvesting of human work power. Nevertheless, it is with Khrushchev that transition to mass housing is associated. The Khrushchev Thaw rejected Stalinist policies and the monumentality of socialist realism, taking a utilitarian turn in construction principles with the aim of resolving the housing crisis in the most efficient way.^[Meuser and Zadorin, Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing, 14.] With the introduction of the second edition of SNiP (Construction Norms and Rules), the chapter devoted to residential buildings, officially referred to as II-В.10-58, was a significant event of 1958 since this was the precursor to the appearance of the first mass large-panel series on the streets of Soviet Russia.

SNiP - acronym for Stroitel’nye Normy i Pravila; Construction Norms and Rules. Five editions of SNiP were issued: II-В.10-58, II-Л.1-62, II-Л.1-71, 2.08.01-85 and 2.08.01-89. First 3 correspond to the original three generations of residential typological series, while the last 2 cover the fourth generation. The last 2 digits of each edition refer to the year of its release.

The first generation (1958-63), under the SNiP II-В.10-58, was the result of a 1957 prefabrication techniques competition. Owing of the way it were conceptualised, this series could only mandate rows of housing, later to critiqued for its repetitive urban layout. The lack of flexibility when designing and inability to tailor functions to specific regions were some of the other major concerns. Anatoly Polyansky, who helped design the pioneer camp Artek in Crimea, reflected in hindsight.

“The mass construction of apartments and social institutions has become a characteristic feature of Soviet architecture, shaping its profile. It is therefore the duty of each architect to contribute his utmost to the further development of architecture of mass housing. Most buildings of this type however are characterised by a lack of expression and monotony.”

The second generation (1963-71), under SNiP II-Л.1-62, was born from Council of Ministers decree, criticising the abundance of small scale structural reforms coming out of many Design Institutes. The generation series could be characterised by their hierarchical development of block sections. The new added flexibility in urban planning allowed to form ‘wavy-shaped’ meandering compositions.

The third generation (1971-85), under II-Л.1-71, became more relaxed as the responsibility for development of new prefabricated product ranges was split between two dozen Design Institutes. The ‘final’ outcome was more flexible in combination, based on a modular 1.2m grid. Wall and ceiling panels, of 3.0, 3.6, and 4.2m were complimented by connecting joint elements, which enabled more complex ensembles and even allowed to fill in gaps between the already existing buildings.^[Meuser and Zadorin, Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing, 15-16.]

In 1954, first thing after becoming the General Secretary of State, Khrushchev releases a decree On the Elimination of Excesses in Design and Construction in which he outlines the introduction of standardisation through inclusion of design catalogues, demanding industrialised construction in favour of ‘bespoke masterpieces’, and denouncing the exuberant pompous details, in preference of a new honest, modest and simple way of expression.

mikroraion (pl. mikroraiony) - micro-district; a residential neighbourhood, containing all the needed amenities for a Soviet citizen, and acting as an atomic module for urban planning.

“We must select a small number of standard designs for residential buildings, schools, hospitals, kindergartens, children’s nurseries, shops, and other buildings and structures, and conduct our mass building programmes using these designs over the course of, say, five years.”

The newly implemented mikroraiony at first housed 4- to 5-storey residential blocks (eventually 6-, 8-, and 12-floor variants were introduced) and were divided into 2-6 sections. Each section is placed around staircase core with each floor having 2, 3, or 4 different apartments connecting to the stair. One of the main design principles was spatial frugality, which resulted in high-density residential blocks and compact living conditions. A morbid example of this, was the use of rotation radii of carried coffins to inform the dimensions of stairwell clearings.^[Byrnes, ‘The Disappearing Mass Housing of the Soviet Union’.]

The hunt for capable engineers and architects has been crystallised in several series of residential housing, developed in the 2nd half of 1950s, later to be called khrushchevki. As it was crucial to transfer most of the on-site workload into the factory setting, the construction went so far as to offer factory-assembled, ready-to-live-in section blocks - apartments with all communications pre-installed. These series were presented to the public as an ultra-modern achievement of Soviet industrial engineering. During the Soviet Exhibition of 1959 in New York (Fig. 1), a global expo of advancements in technology, inline with other engineering successes - first artificial Earth satellite, icebreaker ‘Lenin’ and the largest at the time passenger aircraft TU-114 - the exhibition showed a typical for the time apartment, housing 3 rooms and a small (but fully-equipped) kitchen - all intended for four people. The maquettes, that had omitted the imperfections and the ‘honesty gaps’^[It is indicative of his architectural views, how Khrushchev himself defends the honesty gap - a seam, emerging inevitably on the facade, between panel blocks; in his opinion it can’t be called ugly, since it simply expresses honesty of architecture and manufacturing process; Snopek, Belyayevo Forever, 32.] of rushed construction, were painting the khrushchevka as quite a worthy accomplishment of Socialist Modernism.^[Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’.]

Today, however, with the on-going mass demolition programme in Moscow, it is safe to say that the masterpiece status of khrushchevki is being contested. With the beginning of Moscow’s large-scale reconstruction, the air around the typological housing will change forever.

khrushchevka (pl. khrushchevki) - Zentralnyi Nauchno-Issledovatelnyi Institut Eksperimentalnogo Proektirovaniya; Central Research Institute for Experimental Planning.

On February 21st, 2017, with full support from President Putin,^[Byrnes, ‘The Disappearing Mass Housing of the Soviet Union’.] federal bill delineating the second stage demolition programme of Khruschev-era residential housing, was published. The scheme’s objective is to replace the old typological five-storey housing with contemporary standardised 20-storey high-rises in the following 15-20 years.^[Depending on the source the number ranges from 8-30 years; RAPSI, ‘Prichiny i posl’edstviya snosa’.] costing $44 billion to the Moscow’ government. The replacement of housing stock would involve displacing 1.6 million people (approximately 13% of population), and replacing 25 million square meters of old housing with the supposed 35.14 million square meters of new living space.^[RAPSI, ‘Prichiny i posl’edstviya snosa’.] Moscow’s mayor Sergey Sobyanin, has been overlooking the ongoing demolition, or ‘renovation’ programme (as it is often covertly referred to).^[Litvinova, ‘The Great Leveler’; Percova, ‘Sobynin i Luzhkov’; .] With the final list containing 5174 homes for removal,^[The number is as of November 23, 2020 - the announcement date of the first high-rise to be constructed in Moscow, Rostokino district; ‘Pervuyu novostroiku po programme’..] this is shaping up to be the biggest demolition project Russia’s capital ever seen.^[Rainsford, ‘Distress as Moscow Home Demolitions to Go Ahead’.] Considering the grandiose scales of post-WW2 Soviet construction, the magnitude of the contemporary response is fitting.

One of the biggest concerns that is supposedly governing the decision to overturn old housing, is the dilapidated state of unmaintained buildings, that has brought them into a state of emergency.

“The intention is to improve the living conditions of people who are living in the collapsing homes, build in the middle of last century.” - Vladimir Putin.^[Smirnov, ‘Vladimir Putin - o Snose Pyatietazhek’]

In terms of material expression, the colloquially known khrushchevki, can be subdivided into three groups: blocks, panels, bricks. The most straightforward approach of decluttering the city, would begin with the most cheaply-built - the panel buildings. Next would be block buildings and finally brick housing blocks, which considered to be of the highest quality when it comes to industrial development, being able to stand for another 20 years.^[RAPSI, ‘Prichiny i posl’edstviya snosa’.] and usually positioned on the outskirts, hence in having less economic incentive for new development. However, judging from the way this stage is described in the bill, the order of operations will likely hinge not on the quality of typologies but on profitability of real estate.

Sobyanin’s programme was met with loud reactions even at the phase of programme overview. On May 14th, 2017 on Saharov avenue in Moscow was a rally against the residential renovation bill, which, depending on the estimates, had amassed anywhere around 8 thousand and 20 thousand people. A common concern among activist surrounded the monetary benefits for developers and the city, under the guise of mayor’s benevolence,^[Luhn, ‘Moscow’s Big Move’.] comparing to the 1999 demolition programme under the previous mayor - Yury Luzhkov - who was aiming to replace 1722 five-storey buildings.

Yuri Luzhkov’s renovation programme, lasting alongside the 2 decades of his mayoral administration, was aimed primarily at the demolition, construction and resettlement of the, so called “dispensable series”. The focus was on replacing of low quality emergency state housing, with the scheme operating at a scale of individual buildings. Through qualitative assessment via technical reviews and inquires into maintenance and overhauls, it was possible to select housing that no one typically wanted to stay in and resettle the residents in the same area. Luzhkov’s approach was driven by typological concerns, whereas Sobyanin’s iteration of the programme is regulated by zonal principles for the selection of housing for demolition. The so-called “renovation zones”, determined by the governmental body, admittedly, could be of any series, and any condition, which will inevitably cause discontent among occupants, who may not be prepared to move.

The current federation bill for demolition roadmap is heavily reliant on vague terminology. For instance: ’the permitted demolition of buildings, construction characteristics of which are analogous to the first period of industrial multiapartment residences’.^[Percova, ‘Sobynin i Luzhkov’.] The ambiguity in the language means, that both the Stalin-era Post-Constructivist buildings, and the later post-war generations could be interpreted, as “analogous” to the five-story typologies in question. In fact, several stalinki did end up being listed for demolition. The wording in the bill is symptomatic, either of a shortfall in communication, lack of consideration, or of a deliberate attempt at deception - none of which reflect well on the sincerity of the programme’s intentions.

The question of intentions, gains an added layer of complexity, once we ask ‘what is a mayor to gain from assisting developers?’.

Sobyanin holds a lot more power than any other mayor, not just because he is in control over a capital city, but because that city is Moscow, and Moscow reserves a level of autonomy from the federal government of Russia. The two work in tandem, sharing services and resources; federal government provides Moscow with funding while the capital reciprocates through services, contributing large assets to the national budget.^[Ross, ‘The Battle for Moscow’s Billions’.] Additionally, Moscow is, in many senses of the word, too big. The disbalance in Russia’s population, economics and control are large due to the over-inflation of Moscow’s significance, in which Luzhkov played a crucial role in exacerbating this lop-sidedness during his time in mayoral office.

On the other side of the coin are the developers. Because of Moscow’s unique.

In Chicago, US, housing like Cabrini-Green is replacing the high-density towers with small homes. This would be unimaginable in Moscow and vice-versa. Because, the ownership laws differ, in the West even if you’re the owner, there’s still an understanding of community ownership, so a demolition of buildings is not that easy. While in Moscow the key players are huge developer companies, who get the rights to demolish old neighbourhoods by compensating old residents with replacement units. This may be attractive for most residents but if you refuse to move, you have no choice.^[Byrnes, ‘The Disappearing Mass Housing of the Soviet Union’.]

Sergey Sobyanin’s political connections to Vladimir Putin and financial connections to gas industry put him in a favourable position, however, the reality of governing an enormously complex (and simply enormous) urban centre like Moscow.

Despite the programme focusing only on the Russia’s capital, this wave of change will send ripples across the whole country and all of former Soviet landscape.

There is a clear tension between the pragmatic tangible and the cultural intangible, when it comes to Khrushchevki. Do we want to sacrifice past history and identity for more comfortable conditions? The question is hard, perhaps impossible to answer truthfully. After all, the new buildings will bring tremendous value to many. But, of course, this relies on the notion that the actors at stake will be people in need and not developers looking to benefit, which is an optimistic assumption to be sure. Additionally, there are plenty of older buildings (Stalinist barracks) which are in considerably worse conditions, where families have to repair their homes illegally, using construction debris they find in landfills.

Some may say that rationalising past decisions with past context does not excuse the present issues brought on by said decisions. Which is true, of course, given that we ignore the fact that any building will ‘accumulate’ flaws overtime. Plumwood mentions how ancient ideas reside in our current frameworks of understanding “as residues, layers of sediment deposited by past oppressions” and I would argue that buildings are the tangible manifestations, physically capturing the past forms of thinking, acting as lenses into both the general ideological agendas of the period and of the people who were in charge.^[Plumwood, ‘Feminism and the Mastery of Nature’, 43.]

It is clear, however, that not every ‘outdated’ building is valued equally. For instance, Moscow’s “Arсhnadzor” (Architectural Supervision Bureau) had released a statement, requesting to exclude approximately 320 buildings, constructed prior to the 1950s-60s typological housing series.^[Kommersant, ‘Archnadzor Prosit Ne Priravnivat’’]

2. Perception & Response

In first 30-year construction span of the original first-generation ‘khrushchevki’ the government was a able to settle 30 million people or almost half of the Soviet population, giving millions of families a taste of privacy for the first time. Despite this the now 60-year old typology is a subject of controversy. The divisive nature of Soviet mass housing, and khrushchevki in particular evokes a wide variety of strong responses, with views and opinions differing immensely, depending on the background and perspective of the person asked. The main point of discussion is understanding why the controversy has a place to be among the members of public and what some of the reasons for it may be. The scale of implementation, and the vast time frame means that the sheer number people impacted by the Khrushchev housing revolution is inconceivable. It would be unfair to approach the argument of demolition from an absolutist point of view. There is a place for demolition but the subject has to be approached mindfully.

“After Eighteen Years of endless petitioning to various authorities, waiting patiently, the Kolosov family were overjoyed to finally invite to their housewarming all the co-workers and the government officials, who had tirelessly intervened on their behalf to secure for them the new housing. As the list grew, they fretted they would not have enough space to welcome all who had their helping hand of assistance and encouragement, however, no one will show up to the housewarming anyway - not because of other commitments, but because in actuality, everything remained unchanged, as it had been for years. The Kolosovs are still huddled in a crowded komunalka, as their petition moving from hand to hand, grows thicker with the resolutions of clerk officials."^[A paraphrased humorous tale of the cancelled housewarming, satirising the Soviet bureaucracy and the endless queue for the new panel housing; Aleksandrova, L., ‘Nesostoiavsheesia novosel’e’, Krokodil, no.5, 20 February 1957, 13.]

At the time when the new housing programme was announced the reception was positive. And although the families who managed to acquire a set of keys for the new ’not-yet-khrushchevka’ apartment, must have been overjoyed, as the Krokodil publication humorously remarks, the queues for these places somewhat dampened the cheers. Nevertheless, having a chance to leave the single room, shared by a whole family, for an apartment, their own apartment, must have seemed like a dream come true.

The same excitement, however, could not be shared by the architects responsible for laying out the urban landscapes in 1950s. Urban design lacked flexibility. These buildings were criticised by architects, saying that the future landscape of the city populated by these buildings would be monotonous.

Soviet architects in much of scholarly literature are conventionally described as site planners for a limited number of housing blocks, following the lead of the prefabricated housing units. As the building forms and layout of the standard housing series were predetermined by Design Institutes. Given the countless number of inarguable directives to be followed in urban planning under socialism, one may argue that ’the discipline of urban planning has abolished itself in favour of fulfilling guidelines’.^[Meuser and Zadorin, Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing, 145.] Since the state determined the location, dictated volume, furnished and suggested the financing, the power resting within the hands of local architects is debatable.^[Hess, ‘Architectural Transcendence’] Could an individual produce a meaningful impact on a building’s development, or was the common architect limited to doing menial tasks, following the trajectories set out by decision-makers, or looking for loopholes within the vast landscape of guidelines and bureaucratic rule?

ZNIIEP - Zentralnyi Nauchno-Issledovatelnyi Institut Eksperimentalnogo Proektirovaniya; Central Research Institute for Experimental Planning.

A lot of the reasoning behind individual powerlessness, stems from the contradictory nature of Soviet Union development, characterised by the constant battle between its dynamism and immobility. The dynamism resulted from the continuous economic and the social growths. For instance, October Revolution was the fruit of this dynamism, and despite a slow down over the years, the growth it brought was impressive, rapidly changing the country from 1940s to 1950s and 1960s. On the other hand, the immobility is tied to the bureaucratic stranglehold over the state and society. The rate of growth in the standard of living was accompanied by a scandalous backwardness in social allocations, to the point that a new lowest social layer formed - the ’new poor.’^[Mandel, Beyond Perestroika] When it comes to architecture the over-bureaucratisation played a big role in formulating the process of designing, and shaping the identity of an architect.

Gosstroi - acronym for State Committee for Construction.

For the creation of the typological series catalogue architects, city planners and engineers worked under one roof in state centralised Zonal Design Institutes (or ZNIIEP_s of housing). The institutes followed an integrated working method and were responsible for the entire planning process.^[For the system and operation of Soviet Design Institutes see: Matveeva, N. J.: Architectural Scientific Institutes. In: The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Moscow 1979.] Since standard designs were registered, projects were subject to a simplified planning procedure where for the most part only the connections to the existing urban infrastructures had to be evidenced, otherwise following the predetermined roadmap. Construction was treated as an assembly of prefabricated elements and projects were subject to a simplified planning process - plans were essentially assembly instructions.^[Meuser and Zadorin, _Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing]

To maintain the centralised control over housing development, Gosstroi made primary decisions in Moscow, however, the directives were adjusted in ZNIIEP departments of respective republics under Moscow’s guidelines. Zonal Design Institutes such as TbilZNIIEP (Caucasus), KievZNIIEP (southern Europe), SibZNIIEP (Siberia), LenZNIIEP (northern Europe) and TashZNIIEP (Central Asia) were responsible for regional adaptations and even had opportunities to implement slight modifications to balconies, entrances and mosaic facades.^[Meuser and Zadorin, Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing, 16.]

2023/10/05 update: The link to the poster in Fig.2 I had originally used in this article is no longer accessible. It was hosted on Big Russian Encyclopedia, but the page now gives error 404. I have since moved all images to local file storage.

Khrushchev-era development was a direct response to the Stalin-era housing, which, despite the revolutionary slogans of years prior, was not far-removed from the bourgeois principles that were denounced by the revolution. Constructivist architects, that were building special houses for elites, while also keeping the masses in small wooden barracks, recognised the problematic nature of this housing. Under the Stalinist logic of kul’turnsost’, the privileges of the Soviet Intelligentsia were justifiable as they would in theory trickle down to the rest of population once the communism was finally built. In the meantime, elites got exquisite stalinki, while the masses got the wooden Stalinist barracks.^[Sheila Fitzpatrick, “Becoming Cultured: Socialist Realism…]

kulak (def. Oxford Dictionary) - a peasant in Russia wealthy enough to own a farm and hire labour. Emerging after the emancipation of serfs in the 19th century the kulaks resisted Stalin’s forced collectivization, but millions were arrested, exiled, or shot.

The logic of kul’turnsost’ was not the only opening to criticise the palatial apartments from. Once the apartment was released to local authorities its fate would be no longer determined by the design qualities imbued by the architect, but rather by the distribution logistics that the authorities may assign. If the apartment was deemed to be too large for a single family, then more will be communally assigned until the home was deemed to be filled to a satisfactory degree. Census data reiterated architects’ fears that apartments were becoming overly-communalised. According to a Moscow study, highlighted by Steven Harris,^[Harris, Communism on tomorrow street, 74.] in 1940 70-90% of people moving into newly constructed apartment buildings only received rooms in apartments (komunalki).

stalinka (pl.stalinki) - a colloquial name for Neoclassic apartment from 1930s; built under the reign of Stalin.

Since architects had no say in distribution their only handle on the situation was the design of the buildings. The design solution was to drastically lower the living space sizes, so they were below the sanitary norms, if more than one family were to be settled. With this new ‘subpar’ sizing, local officials could not settle more than a family. In essence, by lowering the space sizes, individual occupants actually received an increase in living space.^[Harris, Communism on tomorrow street, 73-76.]

kul’turnsost’ - culturedness.

At a glance the solution to build compact, densely populated housing seems like the obvious solution for resolving the post-war housing crisis, however, on further examination, communalising the bigger existing housing was the more cost-effective option. The effort to develop the capital technology and nomenclature for managing is a long-term investment that is not evidently justifiable. In fact, building new communal housing would have still been cheaper than creating apartments for individual families purely based on the square meterage per person. In summary, the design decision of minimising the living sizes was as much of a response to the over-communisation concerns as a cost-saving device, even if many of these flats would eventually once again occupy several family generations at once, with komunalki still being around to this day.^[2023/10/05: In retrospect, I can’t say I’m happy with how this is written. As I understand it today, by “communalising bigger existing housing” I meant retrofitting the existing housing that was used previously by the bourgeois class before the revolution (before “eliminating the kulak as a class”) and turning it into proto-barracks (this did happen). The main argument I seem to have been making was that mass housing was becoming more individualist because “over-communisation” was also an issue, aside from lack of housing. What’s most unfortunate is that there is no citations, so I can’t easily check and reassess the statements at this time, but hopefuly the note at least clears up the language.]

The presented above research, may suggest that due to the uniformity and standardisation of residential housing in Socialist era, architects had little control over the design process, however, when examining the vast housing complexes of 1960s-1990s there is observable evidence of Western modernist influence.^[Hess, ‘Architectural Transcendence’]

And so reducing the role of an architect to a cog with the Socialist machine, would be unfair as, in reality, the architects and urban planners were the secret drivers, not merely executing orders, but innovating within the confines of the state’s regime.^[2023/10/05: Again, no citation. I find this very hard to believe. Considering architects are not “driving the system” today, saying they were doing it under totalitarian regime is naive. If the argument is that in retrospect the spaces made by soviet architects were culturally important, that architects were, secretly even to themselves (unwittingly), the drivers of cultural progress, then that is a non-point.]

“Identical staircases are painted in a typical pleasant colour. Typical apartments are furnished with standard furniture, and standard locks are embedded in the faceless apartment doors."^[The Irony of Fate or Enjoy Your Bath!. Director: Eldar Ryazanov, USSR (1971)]

The conversation surrounding Soviet Modernism seemingly cannot bypass the mentions of its ‘dull monotony’.^[A few examples of discussions being centred around monotony: Glendinning, Miles. “Multifaceted Monolith.” In Images of Power and the Power of Images, 47. 1st ed. Berghahn Books, 2012.; Hatherley, ‘Moscow’s Suburbs May Look Monolithic, but the Stories They Tell Are Not’; Byrnes, ‘The Disappearing Mass Housing of the Soviet Union’; and many more.] Khrushchev-era residential construction has garnered a controversial status even before the talks of demolition as the complexity of the aesthetic expression in Soviet residential blocks is far from obvious, not only to the general public, but even to the people, who supposedly view architecture through a more critical lens.^[“As a researcher of 20th Century architecture, time and time again I am forced to prove even to the architects themselves, that there is a conversation to be had here” - Nikolai Erofeev, Architectural Historian; Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’.]

These photographs paint a characteristic picture of Soviet-era spaces that are uncannily similar. This, of course, owes to the standardisation of mass housing, however, it is important to note that these are choreographed, selected snapshots from geographically similar regions.

Prefabricated mass housing in Soviet Union is a term that evokes the impression of a clearly structured system, geared towards a nomenclature of mass housing standards. The opposite is the case however, with the inscrutable nomenclature indicating a lack of organisation. As Alexander Glushko said, regarding to the space travel programme “improvisation had determined the process - and indeed from the very beginning."^[Meuser and Zadorin, Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing, 24.] Consequently, despite the extreme measures for standardisation, it is impossible to talk about Soviet architecture as a homogenous body. It is important we consider that the development of construction methods, which favoured industrialised production, were emerging parallel to the new mass housing efforts. This evolution occurred for several decades, producing a significant catalogue of different residential series. The idea, started under Khrushchev, entailed a selection of little more than half a dozen different series, however, 30 years later improvisation and contradiction had tainted the original methodical structure. With the constantly cropping up exceptions,^[Meuser and Zadorin, Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing, 29.] the catalogue would house anywhere between hundreds and thousands of typology series, a number that sits at odds with the idea of standardisation. Even after selecting to only focus on a single series, one would be hard-pressed to analyse the sheer number of options.^[Meuser and Zadorin, Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing, 163.]

Criticisms, deriding the homogeneity of form, willingly or not, chose to ignore that the architectural aesthetics do not only come from the physical embodiment of a building. Particularly in this project, the depth and originality is found within the creation of a modernist living environment that was able to provide its occupants with previously unseen living necessities - even if those conveniences and new modes of living were relative.^[Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’.] Poor quality of construction, repetitive urban rhythms and “facelessness” of residential ensembles of 1950s-1960s has given the typical Soviet accommodation its bad reputation. These houses, however, mark a global modernist project that transitioned to the industrial construction, the aesthetic of which is rooted in the social and economic politics of the Thaw.^[Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’; Mandel, Beyond Perestroika, 3.]

Soviet Union - at the time the largest country in the world, covering 1/6th of Earth’s area, and spanning 11 of the worlds 24 time zones - was diverse in landmass, climate and cultures (52 ethnic groups of more than 100,000 people).^[‘Political Map of Soviet Union - Nations Online Project’, accessed 15 December 2020, https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/soviet-union-map.htm..] Unsurprisingly, the ever-homogenising Modernist Movement was an appealing tool for evoking state-wide order, unity and equality.^[Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’.] The wholly-centralised nature of the Soviet estate, gave the ability to focus on efficient use of both human and industrial resources, while the urban planning was used for societal reordering during the times of rapid urbanisation, industrialisation, employment-driven migration, and military consolidation.^[Hess, ‘Architectural Transcendence’.] Consequently, the resulting sameness was not just an outcome of the implemented fabrication methods - it was to a large extent a fundamental quality and an intentional design consideration that would shape the social fabric of the whole country. By a way of sculpture and slogans, the architecture of the USSR regime formed a homogeneous modernist habitat, which marks itself as ideologically righteous, in its efforts to equalise the stretches of Soviet Union through spatial typisation.^[Hess, ‘Architectural Transcendence’.]

In its first iteration, mass housing was not bothered with responding to or even differentiating between local site conditions, geographic landmarks or climatic differences (of which there were plenty) - the goal was to build quickly, cheaply and massively. And so the primary response addressed at the on-going housing concerns, and its own ideological agenda of creating a unified Communist society. However, with the move from 1960s to 1970s, the perception around Soviet residences was shifting. Criticisms of these abstracted forms were beginning to prop up and the ‘facelessness’ of buildings was even openly criticised in the ‘Irony of Fate’ film (1975), where narrator sardonically monologues about the new-found benefits of the modern urban identity.^[The Irony of Fate or Enjoy Your Bath!. Director: Eldar Ryazanov, USSR (1971)]

In the old days, when a person found himself in an unfamiliar city, they felt lonely and lost. Everything around was alien: houses, streets and even life. But now it is a completely different matter. A person finds themselves in an unfamiliar city, but feels at home in it. To what absurdity our ancestors reached. They were tormented over every architectural project. And now a typical ‘Raketa’ cinema is being erected in all cities, where you can watch a typical feature film […] The names of the streets also do not differ in variety. In what city is there no 1st Sadovaya, 2nd Zagorodnaya, 3rd Fabrichnaya, 1st Parkovaya, 2nd Industrialnaya, 3rd Builders’ Street! Sounds nice, doesn’t it?

It is important to note the outreach that this film has had. Becoming an instant classic, Irony of Fate would be seen (yearly) by every family as a New Year’s tradition. The acutely portrayed climate of public perception at the time, has been recorded further contributing to the identity of typological Soviet urban layouts.

With the increasing pressure from architects, public and media, throughout the 1970s there have been a remarkable variety attempts to de-homogenise the country by regionalising the prefabricated buildings through artworks, especially in peripheral republics. This change corresponded with Zonal Institutes being given more control over the implementation of secondary elements such as balconies and regionally-expressive façade of the different climatic belts. Additionally, Baltic countries, for example, are well known for their departure from the centralised urban planning rulebook, with clear Western influences (potentially due to geographical distances from the Soviet capital).^[Hess, ‘Architectural Transcendence’] Despite the apparent trajectory away from the total homogenity, the public opinion had already been formed. And although, it may not be seen as such by an obyvatel’ Soviet modernism was a legitimate movement, that played a major role in formulating the artistic expression of its occupants.

An architect’s interest in the late-period modernist architecture will not necessarily be shared by the general public, which is understandable as a large portion of the enjoyment comes from viewing the architecture from a critical point of view. If the necessity to view the buildings critically is the reason for the divide in perception, then whose job is it to narrow the gap; designer? user? or will the chasm self-cure over time? If the appreciation of built environment not limited to its tangible qualities how could we use art in tandem with architecture to transform the boring, repetitive and ugly into something within which more people can find emotional value?^[Snopek, Belyayevo Forever, 11.]

Historically, Moscow’s autonomy has always rendered it as a primary testing bed - whatever cements in Moscow, will be followed by the rest of the (Soviet) Russia, consequences of which will affect hundreds of millions of people. This rule applies to the construction development as well, and has been proven by the countless architectural experiments coming out of Moscow during the Khrushchev era (more on that later). To that end, the success or failure of the programme are bound to heavily send ripples across Moscow, Russia, and potentially the rest of Easter and Central Europe^[Marin and Chelcea, ‘The Many (Still) Functional Housing Estates of Bucharest, Romania’; Kovács, Egedy, and Szabó, ‘Persistence or Change in Hungary’; Ouředníček, Špačková, and Pospíšilová, ‘Long-Term Development and Current Socio-Spatial Differentiation of Housing Estates in Prague, Czechia’..], parts of which have already began to negotiate the question of convenience versus identity.

As mentioned, previously, the standardisation of construction methods was a cornerstone in Soviet urban expansion. The centralised factory manufacture was one of the two complimentary pieces in the cheap, quick and mass-scale resolution of the housing deficit; the other necessary counterpart being the vast largely uninhabited landscapes, prime for the arrays of copy-pasted housing. With the post-war USSR was yet to be urbanised and the the Thaw’s focus on this unexplored territory feels almost like a colonist discovery of a new uncivilised continent.^[Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’; Snopek, Belyayevo Forever, 25.]

“…Under the wing of the plane, green taiga sea sings. / The pilot flying over forest will find the right course, / Landing his plane right in the field, / He will come out, greeted by the yet unfamiliar world in a confident stride…” - sang Lev Barashkov in 1963.^[Translated and adapted by author; Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’.]

Just a few years after completing preliminary experiments, enormous house-building factories, working non-stop in three shifts, were churning out the newly-optimised versions of five- and nine-storey buildings to be pasted across the still non-prefabricated stretches of Socialist land.^[Snopek, Belyayevo Forever, 19.] And it would be difficult to overstate the importance that was placed on the optimisation and quantitive performance of the housing before and throughout the mass production. The ’economics of the construction’ outlined in the decree had eventually successfully made its way into the lexicon of the press. At this point the economical effectiveness not only considered an entirely positive quality, but it was the primary criterium of assessment.

Designers were graded on efficiency of fabrication, speed of construction, and cost-effectiveness. The focus on rationality and effectiveness of resource had turned architecture into more science than art, and the approach was effective, considering that the mikroraion of Novye Cheryomushki was built under 22 months, saving 30% of expenses compared to previous attempts.^[Snopek, Belyayevo Forever, 17.] Publications focused on analysing not on the aesthetic or spatial qualities, but on the quantitive variables such as final cost of production per square metre, like for example, in the comparison of Novye Cheryomushki (1053 rubles per sq.m) and Horoshevo-Mnevniki (944 rubles per sq.m).^[Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’.]

In Belyevo Forever Snopek argues that the understated significance of intangible heritage of architectural objects should be taken in consideration when accessing the candidates for the UNESCO World Heritage List. Author points out that our system for preservation of buildings is predicated equating uniqueness of form to its hereditary worth. To illustrate, he presents the case of Ninth District of Novye Cheryomushki (NC), which was the first model for the mikroraiony. The experimental character of the neighbourhood, gives it a particular charm:

At first glance the building facades seem identical, but close observation reveals plenty of elements that distinguish one from another, There are different division, architectural details and materials. Some buildings are built with brick, some with big blockwork, and some with panel-blocks.^[Snopek, Belyayevo Forever, 17.]

The unique expression of NC and its status as the grandfather mikroraion has garnered it a popularity as an architectural landmark of late modernism. However, that does not seem to be enough to deter the demolition works, and as of now NC are still not listed as a world heritage site. The neighbourhood has been declined for conservation listing and has even had parts of it harmed, when one of the K-7 series was taken down, during the reign of Yuri Luzhkov - the prior mayor of Moscow.^[Rukov, Nigmatulin, and Simakova, ‘Ya zhivu v pervoi khrushchevke v Rossii’.]

Besides attempts to list NC as well as, several bespoke Constructivist and Pre-Revolutionary objects, in the coordinators of the Arkhnadzor movement applied to preserve two more first-generation five-storey buildings. The request submitted to the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage in 2015, aimed to assign the two K-7 buildings the status of cultural heritage sites of regional significance as monuments of science and technology.^[Egorov, ‘Pervye iz massovyh’.]

The exterior expression is typical for the 1950s-1960s housing block, however, some of the details such as the more logical layout, fewer interior bearing columns, and dry assembly techniques (using welding instead of mortar) suggest that a lot of the technologies developed in the prototype stage had to be scaled back, presumably for the sake of speed and budget. Unsurprisingly, the exceptional reason for preserving these khrushchevki is the attributed status of them being the first two Lagutenko-designed K-7 prototypes^[Egorov, ‘Pervye iz massovyh’.] (not to be confused with the first mikroraion located in Ninth District of NC, mention prior).

“In a word, these houses are the very case when the typology has value due to its primacy. After all, it is not without reason that many museums in Russia and the world keep the very first samples of various technical devices, tools, cars, which could later be produced in millions of copies. But these are the first. That is their main value."^[Egorov, ‘Pervye iz massovyh’.]

The argument for preserving uniqueness is a glass cannon, that would shatter even if it to successfully preserve some of the Soviet-era industrial housing. Because the secondly-arranged mikroraion and the thirdly-built khruschevka will not have the benefit of primacy. And the shielding power of organisations such as Archnadzor does not truthfully spread onto the typological series of housing. Realistically, the protection is only reserved to the most unique specimens, and thus Soviet mass housing, as an element of the urban sphere should be viewed as endangered.

To a large extent, the identity of urban expression of typological buildings is tied to the scale of their production and the overall presented ensemble. Considering that perhaps biggest design leverage that architects had was the spatial qualities of the urban layout we should khrushchevki come as a package deal instead of as individually existing instances. Therefore, the preservation of only isolated neighbourhoods would still lead to the loss of the artistic, historic and spatial attributes contained within the stretches of prefabricated housing that characterise the FSU at the moment.

It is important to note: Snopek concludes that “a paradigm based on uniqueness will quickly become defunct” as predetermined by the rise of prefabrication in 20th Century. However, evidently the introduction of industrially-fabricated, and more recently, computer-aided modular design did not bury the full-authored approaches nor to architecture as a whole, and neither to social mass housing. The categorical statement is seemingly too eager to dismiss the pertinence of bespoke architecture, in favour of justifying the preservation of the formally repetitive. Nevertheless, the questioning of preservation methods, and value frameworks through which we assess architecture is paramount to understand how architecture and society balance the vector of progress and maintenance its heritage (tangible or not).

3. Identity & Heritage

If the second chapter was the conversation of monotony and perception surrounding the expressive going-ons of soviet modernism, in this chapter the spotlight fell onto the introverted side of khrushchevki. Given that, one imagines Soviet Russia’s timeline as a pendulum of freedom and tyranny - Stalin’s rule would undoubtedly be at the apex of the tyranny while Khrushchev - in the general area of the freedom extreme. In 1956 Khrushchev gave a speech denouncing Stalin’s oppression and launched “rehabilitations” to free untried prisoners of stalinist regime, and continued with implementation of laws that were meant to expand the freedom of speech. Russia, a country famous for its artistic and cultural contributions was put under a freeze during the period of Stalin’s isolationism - it is thus unsurprising that the Krushchev Thaw is named that. The reforms, following Joseph Stalin’s 1953 death, once again brought the Soviet Union closer to the socialist society as envisioned by Marx and Lenin pursuing the goal of achieving equality for all. Howevemr the efforts of the Thaw were not appreciated by all and Khrushchev was constatly attacked for going against the previously-idolised (or rather still idolised but previously-living) supreme leader. Thus, with the anger that was stirred during his period, after Khrushchev’s inevitable removal in 1964, USSR rapidly went back to the opposite extreme.

Just like politics architecture follows a cyclical pattern of change, adaptation and evolution over time, where each generation designs in response (or retaliation) to the previous. This ideas rings especially true when architecture is used as a political tool, and in the case of Soviet Union the forms created by Khrushchev were just that - a way of controlling people. As mentioned previously Soviet Modernism (of 1950s specifically) does respond to evident site conditions, as it is preoccupied with responding to the Soviet ideology itself. With the previous ornamental forms outright rejected in preference for the new humble but genuine expression, design was used to spread the Soviet doctrines through both tangible and intangible passages. The central idea of housing was the levelling and provision of the universal quality of life on the diverse, heterogeneous landscape of the goliath country. The unification extended beyond the building, syphoning down the cultural pipeline, broadcasted by typical movie theatres, and cultural homes.

“Kratkaya encyclopedia domashnego hozyaystva” (Short Encyclopaedia of House Management) is a two-tome book released by the publication of the “Bol’shaya Sovetskaya Encyclopedia” (The Big Soviet Encyclopedia). In essence, it is a manufacturing catalogue of light production, ranging anywhere from children’s clothing to items and methods of interior arrangement. Typical apartments are dressed in typically-patterned wallpapers which perfectly harmonise with the typical furniture of the block section prefab apartments. As the dawn is washing over the Soviet time zones, every working family synchronously engages in the morning gymnastics routine, broadcast on the standard pre-installed radio socket.^[Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’.]

On top of the function of unification the typisation of spaces was used to almost encode the perfect Soviet citizen. Cities were planned centrally with focus on efficient use of human and industrial resources. Colossal shifts in architecture were parallelled by the ongoing revolution in city planning. The positioning, distances, availability or lack thereof of district public services (such as cinemas, schools and shops), were all dictated almost algorithmically, according to the amount of people leaving in the radius of these potential points of interest.

The small kitchen sizes were rationalised by and promoted for the convenience it would bring to the housewives. New small-sized furniture had to be produced, and so with the typal construction was created a new aesthetic of small, compact things. Soviet, living space was lined with virtual strings of district relationships. The organisational logic set the tone of the soviet urban planning in a way that a person’s movement would rationally intersect with the commodity points.^[Erofeev, ‘Estetika Sovetskoi Zhiloy Arhitektury’.]

Instead of following spatial compositions the urban layouts adhered to strict calculations, designed to optimise the everyday life trajectory of a statistical human unit. Instead of following comprehensive visual logic, city layouts began following conceptual logic, the effect of which moved Soviet interpretation away from the familiar city archetypes. Buildings in the mikrorayons were perceived more as object scattered about than elements, adding up to a bigger picture, while the rigid planning scheme resulted in typifying vast chunks of Moscow and rapidly covering Moscow’s suburbia with odd, repetitive and completely predictable landscape.^[Snopek, Belyayevo Forever, 30.]

The satellite view of Moscow is characterised by its concentric plan, radiating from Kremlin, which acts as a focal point for the primary prospects (avenues) that pierce the irregular encircling streets, creating a direct tether between the heart of the capital and its outskirts. The buildings align in geometric shapes composing perfect rectangles, squares, circles and zigzags around public landmarks, formulating the iconic Soviet mikrorayons. These are more reminiscent of transistors on a computer motherboard than of houses in a city.

Material practitioners recognise the power of objects to manifest radical changes in society. In particular, during the Khrushchev thaw Natalia Lebina asserted, “Details of the interior were signs of the epoch of Khrushchev reform.” An object even as banal as a lampshade encapsulates the transformations in Soviet Society , particularly in terms of aesthetics and values. This becomes ever so evident in material culture discontinuities between Stalin and Khrushchev eras.^[Varga-Harris, ‘Homemaking and the Aesthetic and Moral Perimeters of the Soviet Home during the Khrushchev Era’,562.] The catalogue of typisation was thus not limited to housing series’ but laterally implemented into all scales of the Soviet citizen’s life.The commitment to rationalised layouts and the love of the rigid grid-like structure, evident in the architectural from of those years is a byproduct bureaucratic of the Soviet Design Institutes, and it igves a glimpse into the overbearing control that the government was seeking. However, there is one more layer that can characterise khruschevkas in an entirely different light.Before de-Stalinzation, the expression freedom of expression was repressed, in particular the expression of comedy was entirely repressed under a deliberate policy in a Collectivisation campaign of 1929-32.

Before de-Stalinzation, the expression freedom of expression was repressed, in particular the expression of comedy was entirely repressed under a deliberate policy in a Collectivisation campaign of 1929-32.^[Iain Lauchlan, ‘Laughter in the Dark: Humour under Stalin’, in Le Rire Européen, ed. Alastair B. Duncan and Anne Chamayou (Presses universitaires de Perpignan, 2010).]

“Satirical jokes about the Party leaders may gradually blunt revolutionary vigilance if they are treated in a conciliatory manner. Behind an anecdote there may lurk a Menshevik, Trotskyist, class enemy.”

This was a significant freedom that was being taken, however, people would still joked and thrived through doing so because of a lack of any other kind of popular culture. In absence of civility laughter more than ever would serve the Bergsonian function as a social cohesive.^[Henri Bergson, Le Rire: essai sur la signification du comique (1899); in English: Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. Trans. C. Brereton and F. Rothwell (London, 1911/1935).]

An only after khurchchevkas were introduced people could do what they wanted at least part of the time, this lead to activist meetings, the release of samizdats.

samizdat - the clandestine copying and distribution of literature banned by the state.

“But its [the room’s] main advantage was the walls. Neither the shining white ceiling with a stuccoed circle in the centre, nor the glossy yellowness of the parquet, were as enjoyable as these four thick, soundproof walls. They protected them with a stone chest from prying eyes, allowed them to jump, fool around, talk all sorts of nonsense, look into each other’s eyes”^[In his book called After Wedding, Granin desribes a couple of newlyweds first moving into their home; Granin, Posle Svad’by.]

Conclusion

Khrushchevki have gone through journey of identity shifts. From the intended temporary, to seemingly permanent, to suddenly ephemeral. Concerns over the merit of preservation bring up some points for discussion. Since all that is built will inevitable crumble, how do we decide when something is valuable enough to maintain? Typologies of late Socialist modernism have outlived their intended physical life cycle, however, after 50 years the impact brought is not longer that of a temporary structure. Khrushchevki have become emplaced, forming identities of cities, persistent in memories of people. Additionally, given that a lot of the pre-war housing has not been preserved the identity of many Soviet countries is defined by the modernist architecture left after Thaw. The scale of the project in the past and the perceived monotony of cities today is what gives these cities their character in the first place. FSU cities act as inhabited museums of modernist architecture, glazed with memories of people.

Considering that from the onset architecture is grounded by its intangible values it would be unfair to only judge purely pragmatically when talking of demolition.^[Snopek, Belyayevo Forever.] Objects and materials are not a reflection of historical events but active agents of change, “tools through which people shape their lives”, as Leora Auslander has put it. The objects “create social positions and even (some argue) the self itself”. So by controlling these materials authorities can have a handle on how to Soviet person is moulded.

Architects who are at a first glances seen as following the orders reactively consciously or not were responsible for providing previously unknown freedoms to the Soviet People. By reducing the apartment sizes the distribution of living space was forced to accommodated a single family per unit, which in turn put an end to communalisation of residential housing. With the end of kommunalki people finally had their privacy free from surveillance.