Yeah, I know. But these are exclusive to America and the underdeveloped world, and we’re not defending that. It also has similarities with it. Europe has good housing (Though unaffordable) that isn’t suburbia, but modern day commie blocks aren’t exactly affordable in Russia either.
I loved to hate these buildings, but behind those grey boxes there was planning. Lots of nurseries, kindergarten, schools, playground, pharmacies, shops, and parks in-between, and public transportation. Whereas modern construction is all for maximizing profit, “luxury residence” everywhere, putting the most of sq meters in every plot, and f.ck the rest.
Also: the size layout of the flats is really good, not like the 39.5sqm random polygons of a modern buildding.
I don’t get the individuality aspect. Do you mean the uniform aesthetic? You can still personalize inside, you know, the place you usually see where you live. I live in a beautiful altbau building in Germany and I couldn’t care less, like fuck do I care about the outside of the house, inside I cannot drew one hole into the wall without it becoming a day long project.
You cannot really express individuality with housing, unless you are building a house from scratch, which few of us do. We can hardly afford to rent anything, it’s not exactly pick and choose?
I’d argue insulation and soundproofing are bigger issues than individuality and making people miserable.
I feel like Vienna did it better. And in European cities that didn’t get bombed to shit in ww2 these houses look out of place and terrible. These houses weren’t build for the benefit of people, but for the benefit of production, like in good old capitalism. They often disregarded the enviroment and historic parts of the city
No, we don’t have to agree to that. The abolition of homelessness didn’t make people miserable, guaranteed housing made people thrive.
We’re talking of a country that in 1929 was a preindustrial feudal backwater nation with 85% of the workforce being peasants who, with a bit of luck, worked their landlord’s land with a horse, and without luck they worked it with their bodies. These people lived in poverty conditions without running water, electricity or more heating than a simple fireplace.
By 1970, even after suffering catastrophic destruction at the hands of the Nazism they heroically defeated, it was a fully industrialized country with a majority of the workforce in cities. People, for the first time, enjoyed access to commodities such as running clean water, central heating and electricity. This was literally a revolution for most. This housing was guaranteed, most people accessed it through their work union, and its rent costed a meager 3% of monthly income on average.
The USSR didn’t have the 200 year long process of industrialization that the UK, Germany, France or the USA enjoyed. They literally had to build new, modern housing for a hundred million people in a few decades. The only way possible to do this was with industialized panel construction. Since unemployment was abolished and jobs were guaranteed, everyone was employed in the country. It was literally impossible to build more housing.
This housing was not only guaranteed, it was also designed in walkable neighborhoods with easy access by foot to public transit, basic services such as childcare, shopping and medical attention, and there was a wide variety of cultural centres, sports facilities and other public activities. The socialist country created social people.
I know this, I used to live in a Stalin era house in Moscow. But Stalin’s Russia had a big problem with housing, only Khrucshev fixed it. All of these things may come as a shocker to an American, but they’re quite common in Europe. And it wasn’t that easy to get a house, you had to wait in line for half your life and the system didn’t work with a bit of corruption, like centralized systems always do. Comparing the USSR to western countries is especially bad, because western countries had no regard towards workers, and if we look at the same timeframe we could say they advanced their housing capabilities equally.
systematic government slop that destroy individuality and make people miserable.
I was under the impression they were centrally planned, modern brutalist buildings that didn’t meet all expectations as 2was typical of modernist project of the time (c.f. le corbusier’s projects).
Not some darstardly unliveable conspiricy.
Why did they leave so much room for light and green space?
Ok, but we have to agree that Soviet blocks are systematic government slop that destroy individuality and make people miserable.
I can see some of that given the uniformity, but suburbia isn’t exactly all that diverse. So ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, they’re both pretty crap compared to what they could be
Funny story, suburbia is systemic government slop that destroys individuality, too.
Yeah, I know. But these are exclusive to America and the underdeveloped world, and we’re not defending that. It also has similarities with it. Europe has good housing (Though unaffordable) that isn’t suburbia, but modern day commie blocks aren’t exactly affordable in Russia either.
I loved to hate these buildings, but behind those grey boxes there was planning. Lots of nurseries, kindergarten, schools, playground, pharmacies, shops, and parks in-between, and public transportation. Whereas modern construction is all for maximizing profit, “luxury residence” everywhere, putting the most of sq meters in every plot, and f.ck the rest.
Also: the size layout of the flats is really good, not like the 39.5sqm random polygons of a modern buildding.
I don’t get the individuality aspect. Do you mean the uniform aesthetic? You can still personalize inside, you know, the place you usually see where you live. I live in a beautiful altbau building in Germany and I couldn’t care less, like fuck do I care about the outside of the house, inside I cannot drew one hole into the wall without it becoming a day long project.
You cannot really express individuality with housing, unless you are building a house from scratch, which few of us do. We can hardly afford to rent anything, it’s not exactly pick and choose?
I’d argue insulation and soundproofing are bigger issues than individuality and making people miserable.
I feel like Vienna did it better. And in European cities that didn’t get bombed to shit in ww2 these houses look out of place and terrible. These houses weren’t build for the benefit of people, but for the benefit of production, like in good old capitalism. They often disregarded the enviroment and historic parts of the city
No, we don’t have to agree to that. The abolition of homelessness didn’t make people miserable, guaranteed housing made people thrive.
We’re talking of a country that in 1929 was a preindustrial feudal backwater nation with 85% of the workforce being peasants who, with a bit of luck, worked their landlord’s land with a horse, and without luck they worked it with their bodies. These people lived in poverty conditions without running water, electricity or more heating than a simple fireplace.
By 1970, even after suffering catastrophic destruction at the hands of the Nazism they heroically defeated, it was a fully industrialized country with a majority of the workforce in cities. People, for the first time, enjoyed access to commodities such as running clean water, central heating and electricity. This was literally a revolution for most. This housing was guaranteed, most people accessed it through their work union, and its rent costed a meager 3% of monthly income on average.
The USSR didn’t have the 200 year long process of industrialization that the UK, Germany, France or the USA enjoyed. They literally had to build new, modern housing for a hundred million people in a few decades. The only way possible to do this was with industialized panel construction. Since unemployment was abolished and jobs were guaranteed, everyone was employed in the country. It was literally impossible to build more housing.
This housing was not only guaranteed, it was also designed in walkable neighborhoods with easy access by foot to public transit, basic services such as childcare, shopping and medical attention, and there was a wide variety of cultural centres, sports facilities and other public activities. The socialist country created social people.
I know this, I used to live in a Stalin era house in Moscow. But Stalin’s Russia had a big problem with housing, only Khrucshev fixed it. All of these things may come as a shocker to an American, but they’re quite common in Europe. And it wasn’t that easy to get a house, you had to wait in line for half your life and the system didn’t work with a bit of corruption, like centralized systems always do. Comparing the USSR to western countries is especially bad, because western countries had no regard towards workers, and if we look at the same timeframe we could say they advanced their housing capabilities equally.
Image looks like Toronto LOL
Yeah.
Not my left.
[citation needed]
They are designed with productivity in mind, much like capitalist architecture, they aren’t designed to be liveable.
I would like evidence supporting
I was under the impression they were centrally planned, modern brutalist buildings that didn’t meet all expectations as 2was typical of modernist project of the time (c.f. le corbusier’s projects).
Not some darstardly unliveable conspiricy.
Why did they leave so much room for light and green space?
They left so much green space so the workers would be happier and wouldn’t revolt