Post #1078306
2026-04-04 09:37 UTC
So, no, it’s not anything political. It’s a cultural thing.
Soviet housing either followed or was contemporary with Le Corbusier’s ideas of affordable ‘habitation units’, the now-famous cookie-cutter blocks with minimal decoration. The OOP is quite correct in calling it leftist, since the purpose was to have lots of cheap housing: the USSR had huge expansion of it during the fifties-seventies, with massive migration from rural areas to cities (following the less-neat redistribution of housing, wooden barracks, and communal living in the thirties).
Can’t say I like the outcome too much, because arguably same population density can be achieved with lower-rising houses, since they don’t require huge areas between them to have any sunlight. Khrushchev-era districts can be much cozier than later ones, since five-storey buildings are placed closer and have trees right outside the windows.
Replies (1)
-
@homes@piefed.world 2026-04-04 10:00
As was aptly, stated by another commenter here: It’s also not left wing architecture. It’s the cross roads of a left wing housing initiative, and a right wing refusal to spend money on the public good. What you get is something akin to unsecured prison architecture. So, again, no. This isn’t an example of left-wing architecture. This makes it an example of bad politics.