
The Disappearing Mass Housing of the Soviet Union - myth_drannon
https://www.citylab.com/housing/2017/03/the-disappearing-mass-housing-of-the-soviet-union/518868/
======
timthelion
I think that there is a lot of "the grass is always greener" type of feeling
in Eastern Europe. The panel houses are not fundamentally bad places to live,
but there is this default feeling, that it is somehow worse than the west. A
lot of people in Prague have this feeling that the entire US looks like the
New York that they know from the sitcoms.

Those panel houses which have been renovated and their elevators replaced are
really nice. All of the buildings are painted different collors and the whole
place looks prety idilic. Only real problem for the residents, is that it is
hard to rase kids when you have one and a half bedrooms...

Now, Czech culture has become generational. For almost the majorty of my
friends, the older generation lives in a panel house. Those are the grandmas
and grandpas of my peers. The parents of my peers have bought a newer
appartment somewhere else. And they have left the appartment in the panel
house to their batchelor children, who like having cheep/free housing to live
in till they get married.

However, there are also some massive developments at the edge of the city,
where there are 20-30 panel houses, all huge, and no good public transport.
The green areas have been replaced with parking lots and anyone who comes
close wants to kill themselves.

It is shocking to me, how two buildings built from the same plans, 30 minutes
appart, can give such a different impression. One seems like a dream and the
other seems like dystopia.

~~~
VeejayRampay
Quick question: Is the New York of sitcoms supposed to present "good housing"?
The two most famous New York sitcoms that come to mind (namely Seinfeld and
Friends) present rather small and basic apartments, people using in-building
shared washers and driers, doesn't look any better than the ridiculously small
apartments we have in Paris.

~~~
unprepare
Seinfelds apartment seems pretty huge to me, and i dont live anywhere near as
expensive as New York

[http://img00.deviantart.net/15bd/i/2013/039/8/f/jerry_seinfe...](http://img00.deviantart.net/15bd/i/2013/039/8/f/jerry_seinfeld_apartment_floorplan_by_nikneuk-d5h2sse.jpg)

similarly the main apartment in friends seems pretty large

[http://pre14.deviantart.net/3e01/th/pre/i/2016/036/8/8/frien...](http://pre14.deviantart.net/3e01/th/pre/i/2016/036/8/8/friends_apartment_s_floorplans___version_2_by_nikneuk-d8flr3a.jpg)
\- note that this diagram is for both the girls apartment and the guys
apartment across the hall, so we are looking at two apartments here

quick credit to the artist of these diagrams, they have a ton of other shows
on their deviantart page[1]

[1][http://nikneuk.deviantart.com/gallery/](http://nikneuk.deviantart.com/gallery/)

~~~
ido
"friends" were indeed huge for such young people...however Seinfeld in-show
was supposedly successful enough to buy his father a cadillac as a birthday
present, so I can more readily accept that he could afford a relatively
spacious 1 bedroom apartment in 80's/90's NYC (remember that the city used to
be a lot more affordable back then).

------
kbart
Having grown up in one of these myself in ex-Soviet country, I hate them with
passion. The quality of utilities is awful: sewage pipes get clogged all the
time and whole buildings smell like piss more often than not, thermal
insulation was practically non-existent and tried to be compensated by
extensive heating that had poor circulation and no way to be adjusted flat-by-
flat basis, so if you live in bottom floors you would have to open windows in
the middle of winter, and if you live in the upper floors, you have to sleep
with your clothes on and few layers of blankets. Sound isolation was also so
poor, you didn't even need to turn on TV or radio, because you could hear
neighbor's clearly. The whole blocks of the same, bleak, monotonous houses are
also very depressive place to live in. Currently most of the remaining
_Khrushchyovkas_ are getting renovated (something like this:
[http://www.manostatyba.info/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/mazei...](http://www.manostatyba.info/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/mazeikiai1-e1391010294723.jpg)), but I shudder even to
the idea living in any of them again.

~~~
agumonkey
I told this above:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13837463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13837463)

maybe you will find this kind of renovation interesting.

~~~
kbart
Yes, there has been a long discussion on what to do with these buildings. Some
experts wanted to raze them to the ground and build new ones, but the easier
(temporary) solution of renovation was chosen, because it would require too
much of government funds and there are also law issues as there isn't many
legal means to move stubborn flat owners from their property if they don't do
want to and as mostly elders live in these places now (many of them even since
it was built), this is a big issue.

~~~
agumonkey
It's a natural reaction, avoid the hugh and costly efforts. But, at least in
France, the impact of these buildings, in none wealthy [1] places, led to very
deep social problems. Racism, poverty, insalubrity..

Destroying them seems the most effective solution as of now. It changes people
living there mindset, it removes the memories of the issues attached to the
architecture.

~~~
agumonkey
for the curious, that theory is quite possible, I don't have data on who was
displaced by the "rework". That said the population didn't change much, still
cosmopolitan, 3rd gen of immigrants from Africa (north or west).

------
tacon
In the 90s I had a girlfriend from Moscow and very early on she played the
film Irony of Fate[1] for me, to help explain Russian culture. It is a classic
comedy based on how identical the housing blocks were at the time. A man gets
drunk, gets on a plane, forgets which city he is in (Moscow or Leningrad/St.
Petersburg), and goes to an identical street in the wrong city, opening an
identical door with the same key. Hilarity ensues.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Irony_of_Fate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Irony_of_Fate)

~~~
cr1895
Tariverdiev's score of this film has recently been released, and it's really
nice:

[https://tariverdiev.bandcamp.com/album/the-irony-of-fate-
ori...](https://tariverdiev.bandcamp.com/album/the-irony-of-fate-original-
score)

I think my favorite track is "Along My Street for Many Years."

------
koliber
My wife and I had an interesting observation about these apartment blocks.

They were built really quickly, often on the outskirts of cities, where there
was plenty of undeveloped land. They were often placed in large groups. The
landscape was bleak at the beginning. Huge gray apartment blocks spaced in a
random fashion.

There was a lot of space between them. Large empty spaces. Sure, footpaths
were set down, grass was sown, and small trees were planted. But in the
beginning, they looked bleak.

Fast forward thirty or forty years. The trees have grown huge. The playgrounds
are no longer depressing. On the outside, they are actually very nice. They
were insulated and painted and are no longer drab. These developments have a
park vibe to the, with the large trees, asymmetric building placement, and
large open spaces.

This is not taking into account the conditions inside, as those varied from
country to country, city to city, and development to development. Many have
been modernized, but some still have the fundamental problems mentioned by
others.

The moral of the story is that large trees and open spaces make for pleasant
living.

~~~
agumonkey
In France the melody played backwards. Housing blocks, which I've read were
also praised by communists there, started as little paradises. Not too
disconnected, out of the box parks, daily shops (groceries, hair, ..), some
tiny lakes, sport fields even some times.

Fast forward decades, many of them became ruins and barely liveable places
(for tons of different factors).

Now they've been a thorn in France's shoe, some neighborhood have been
recently deeply remodeled. A good 50% of blocks, towers and bars have been
destroyed and replaced by smaller blocks. The difference in scale makes the
place liveable. I couldn't believe the impact on the city.. Having smaller
heights and tinier blocks instead of prison like huge and dense structures
brings back life and peace.

Previously there were renovation plans but they just fixed breakage and
applied a new layer of paint. These would quickly become dirty, with graffitis
back soon too. But the new blocks are still clean after 2 years.

My feeling is now that housing projects were a necessary error of the post war
era; but they're far from optimal for a sense of good life.

~~~
varjag
Could it be that as the capacity of the neighbourhoods decreased, prices
soared?

~~~
agumonkey
Meaning the poorest just ran away from the place, and a new wealthier
population is now living here, explaining why the new buildings are still
"clean" ?

~~~
varjag
Well, something had to change, and I doubt it was the effect delta from high
rise aesthetic. We all probably seen plenty of run down, broken glass and
graffiti yet low-rise neighbourhoods.

What often happens with projects in Europe is as metropolitan areas expand,
the then-outskirts where the blocks originally were become attractive located
land. Not sure the mechanics of this in France though, but could be the same
dynamics.

~~~
agumonkey
ha, I messed up.. I added a complementary comment but I answered the wrong
post ..

Here's the added paragraph
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841394](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841394)

~~~
varjag
> That said the population didn't change much, still cosmopolitan, 3rd gen of
> immigrants from Africa (north or west).

I don't think ethnic composition matters as much as income bracket. Middle
class people tend to have both means and priority to care after their
property.

------
rdtsc
Grew up in one of those. Then moved "up" from a 5 story to a 9 story building
but same idea.

Many downsides to those indeed, but that feeling of moving to an new apartment
after waiting in line for years and years. I still remember it to this day. I
even had my very own tiny room.

Interestingly even though those houses were old they were pretty solid, and
isolated noise better than a few American apartment building I've lived in,
with walls made from drywall and wood.

~~~
mirimir
Some of them were designed with pretty external tile detailing. But it
typically got trashed in transport. Overall, interior finishing was better
than early Holiday Inns.

------
df3
There are a lot of housing blocks just like this across the USSR. I've visited
a number of them in former East Berlin
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau)).
They aren't pretty on the outside, but some have been modernized into higher-
end apartments on the inside.

As for the units that haven't been modernized, they're still better quality
housing than what you find in lower income neighborhoods in the United States.
I wouldn't be thrilled to live in one, but it wouldn't be the end of the
world.

------
surfmike
The embedded street view of a five-story "Khrushchyovka" actually looks pretty
nice. Very green, narrow streets, and car-free passages between buildings.

My mom lived in a similar style building in Poland. The quality wasn't great,
but my cousins have renovated some of their units to really nice sleek modern
apartments.

~~~
BTurkE
As a westerner that spent time in Poland and lived in one of these buildings
(in a renovated unit), I can say there were things to like. The best part is
like you say, the green spaces between the buildings, particularly when you
had a view on them from one of the upper floors. Very peaceful on the balcony.
Plus the stairs were good exercise :)

~~~
gambiting
Yeah, this is pretty much where I grew up - loved walking between the
buildings, lots of places to play and I never felt unsafe:

[https://www.google.pl/maps/place/Braszczok,+Brzeszcze/@49.97...](https://www.google.pl/maps/place/Braszczok,+Brzeszcze/@49.9715433,19.130759,3a,75y,85h,88.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3lPewmdRaYz_QXq-
OZ3W-A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D3lPewmdRaYz_QXq-
OZ3W-A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.61956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x4716bded8531f8ed:0x3459f10b4264b1c4!8m2!3d49.9846378!4d19.1449642!6m1!1e1)

------
thriftwy
\- I don't think they're actually going to demolish those. Where are the money
for that? They didn't even begin to explain how whis is going to work economy-
wise.

\- Now is precisely the worst time for projects of that scale. The only mass
housing the modern Russia can build is 25-story ugly buildings without
parking, trees, roads, schools but with chilling winds between the apartment
towers. Urban planning and landscape design are completely nonexistent.

\- Compared to US or Western Europe, people are cramped into tiny apartments.
No suburbia. No gardens. No neigbours. No roads. No backyard, no place to
play. Walkable tho, if you are lucky.

\- The quality of urban layout was actually dwindling all the time. Stalinist
5-storeys were okay (green, near to public transportation, with shops),
5-storey block khruschevki were worse (no more shops, worse apartments), 9- to
17- block brezhnevki were even worse (further from city centers and public
transit, snow hurricanes between tall towers, no infrastructure, no trees),
and what gets built today is abysmal.

\- So are they going to replace okay-ish 5-storeys with this:

[http://varlamov.ru/2210604.html](http://varlamov.ru/2210604.html)

\- For some reason, people still buy those apartments. Even given choice. It's
a complete mystery to me. If you ask a Russian which car he wants, he'd
probably go for a sport BMW. But ask the same about apartments, and he'll
promptly point to concrete coffin on the outskirts.

Disclaimer: happy resident of an apartment in 1901 built house in SPb.

~~~
diimdeep
Exactly. Myself spend 25+ years in 12-storey brezhnevka. Done massive
renovation inside. Outside of building even after 25 years, don't change much
in better way, only previously empty place is now occupied by somewhat same
~12 brezhnevka.

It's like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infill)
but without planning, just randomly.

People buy those apartments because there is no much chose. Myself I don't
really know any alternatives.

------
forgotpwtomain
Most of the Russian economy is based on exploiting (Gas, Oil, Steel etc.)
and/or reliance (Metro, Railways, Housing, Water Treatment, Powerplants) on
Soviet era infrastructure. The high levels of corruption in government and
instability of investments has made the primary goal of owners and investors
to gain as much profit as possible and get it out of the country - I don't
expect any really positive developments for decades.

------
futurix
I am biased as I lived in one of those for 20+ years, but I think they
couldn't be replaced quickly enough.

Atrocious housing stock.

~~~
csydas
I haven't lived in one nearly as long, but I find them okay for the most part.
I'm a US expat so it took me a bit to get used to the rather compact nature of
the apartments in St. Petersburg, but while the outsides of these buildings
look like they're begging to be torn down, most people have done some amazing
modern renovations with the actual apartments themselves. My partner's mother
has a very lovely multi-room apartment, and my only complaint with it is just
that the shower room is far smaller than I'm used to.

In SPB at least, new construction is going up as fast as they can do it, and
while a lot of it is done in more remote areas (end of Metro lines), there is
plenty to support people who live in those areas. Dozens of full grocery
stores within walking distance at the base of every complex, bus transit is
plentiful and relatively frequent (compared to US bus schedules anyways), and
the developers/city do seem to try to create good public places for families,
such as playgrounds and parks. I have to echo what a lot of others have said,
it's nice to be able to walk through the complexes and not have to worry too
much about cars. The complexes closer to the city proper have some difficulty
though with cleanliness just because a lot of the gardens and embankments
aren't well tended to or the infrastructure built to contain the dirt has
finally given out after 60 some years, and no one has bothered to fix it. The
city tearing up roads and grass embankments to replace ancient plumbing
doesn't help much either.

It's not perfect, obviously - the newer buildings are mostly small one or two
room apartments, but they have modern amenities, are wired up with modern
network and electrical, and overall look nice.

Don't think they'd ever fly in the US though...just not "personal" enough.

~~~
pm90
> Don't think they'd ever fly in the US though...just not "personal" enough.

I wonder if that's really true. Personally I hate paying rent ... absolutely
hate it. Most of my day is spent either at office or at coffeeshops/bars for
work and again in gym/bars/coffeeshops/traveling after work/on the weekends. A
house is just a place to sleep and cook when I have some time. I absolutely
hate paying ~10% of my paycheck for rent; so if we had such "impersonal" but
functional residences, I would gladly live in them.

~~~
csydas
I think this has been tried a few times in multiple cities. Seattle had a
thing where people lived in really tiny aparmtents (like one room with shared
amenities in a public area), and there was some conflict over it but I can't
recall what it was. The residents were happy, but for some reason the city and
neighbors weren't.

And my personal experience is that people would in general dislike it, with a
preference for a private space. I remember comments about the apartments I had
when I lived in the US being "small"; I'm of the same opinion as you that a
home is pretty much just a place to rest, cook, and clean up, and if I could
find a smaller place with the few amenities I wanted, I would.

But that doesn't really seem to be what people are interested in, and the few
smaller living spaces available are usually inflated in price due to them
having been a fad at one point.

The idea of apartment ownership is also a bit different in the US versus
abroad, as my partner's family owns their apartment - they can do the floors,
drill into walls, remodel the bathroom, all without anyone else's approval.
Such renovations are considered pretty standard and from what I'm told they're
considered already as part of the cost of purchasing an apartment. The
location and the space is more important than what it looks like.

Compared to apartments in the US that are pretty clear about what sort of
decorating and remodeling is and isn't allowed, and the sense of home is much
different.

~~~
gozur88
That's true. I bought my first house (I'm in the US) because I wanted to be
able to alter my living space - plant a garden, turn a bath into a shower,
upgrade a circuit from 15 amps to 30. Even when there's no disputing the
change is an improvement, landlords don't like it when you modify their
property, and I don't really blame them.

------
dcgudeman
"What we find in Western societies is that even if you’re the owner of your
own apartment, there’s still an understanding of community ownership. It
wouldn’t be possible just to demolish these buildings and replace them today."

Pretty frustrating sentiment. This is why we have a housing crisis in the bay
area, NIMBYism.

~~~
rdtsc
> Pretty frustrating sentiment. This is why we have a housing crisis in the
> bay area, NIMBYism.

It's very frustrating indeed when you lived all our life in that apartment,
your pension is minimal just enough to scrape by, and some developer (probably
corrupt, in bed with the city mayor) comes and kicks you out so they can build
a fancy apartment building to sell it to some multi-millionaire.

I am sure it' s just like the bay area :-)

~~~
nikanj
Say what you want about the soviet model, but with an ample, cheap supply of
housing stock you could just buy a new flat from the house next door

~~~
varjag
No, you couldn't buy anything really. There was tremendous housing shortage
throughout all USSR existence, and the apartments were distributed. There were
some building "cooperatives", but they were massively subsidized too, with the
spots rationed and queued for many years ahead.

------
rodionos
These buildings were built with many intentional shortcuts (by design). The
real tragedy however was to allow their construction in seismic zones. One of
the reasons why so many people died in the Spitak earthquake is that many of
these Khrushevkas collapsed like a house of cards.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Armenian_earthquake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Armenian_earthquake)

------
jlebrech
i think this should be the default welfare housing you get for nothing and a
canteen that gives free slop.

~~~
mcculley
You think children on welfare should be fed slop?

~~~
redwood
If by slop he basically means stew, that certainly beats food stamps used at
typical american "fast food" and other diabetes-causing sodas, twinkies, etc.

~~~
mcculley
I don't see why one would have only those two choices when trying to feed
children whose parents are unable to provide for them.

~~~
jlebrech
what about 365 different vegan meals throughout the year, and those are free
for the kids?

