LOREM IPSUM ︎M
























Standardized housing blocks were the most spread living typology in socialist countries and beyond. Due to the housing shortage after WWII, states put most of the effort to provide society with quick housing solutions. In Soviet states in particular the aim was to reach the efficiency of construction at any possible goals.
After Stalin's death, Khrushchev, new head of The Soviet Union unfolded an intensive housing program, claiming:

«Do you build a 1000 adequate apartments or 700 good ones? And would a citizen rather settle for an adequate apartment or wait 10-15 years for a good one?».


Consequently, the mass housing construction was kicked off. These residential units became widely distributed, but the quality was the lowest possible. The main motto of the program was “better, faster, cheaper”. Valeriy Lagutenko, chief engineer of the planning directorate designed several series of mass-produced blocks, which were built all around Soviet Union afterwards.

It was a five-storey building of various lengths.  Cost efficiency and safety measures of the state stipulated number of storeys, defined to avoid elevator construction.

The most popular one became the K-7 series, which is currently known as

khrushchevka.


Mostly it is a five-story walk-up with a stairwell and without long corridors. khrushchevka. Mostly it is a five-story walk-up with a stairwell and without long corridors. There were three types of apartments: one-room (30m2), two-room (44m2), three-room (60m2). All of them contained of a small entrance hall, 5m2 kitchen and cubicle bathroom with 1.2m2 “sitting bathtub”.  





The ceilings were low and heating was single-piped and centralized to save the materials. In general,
khruschovkas were divided into disposable series, the time-span of which planned to be 25 years, and non-disposable ones, still constructed from cheap, low-quality materials. By the end of the 1960s average

apartment block varied from 9 to 11 storeys due to the lack of space.






LOREM IPSUM ︎M

LOREM IPSUM ︎M

As an architectural typology, khrushchevkas are considered as a rather successful one, serving as a solution for social problems, as well to a political strategy of intensified urbanization and industrialization in Soviet times. But, apparently, it generated issues, the consequences of which we are still seeing now. Architecturally key problems of such a typology are the space shortage in the apartments, low ceilings, as well as the durability of communications. Another significant struggle emerged in 1990s after the collapse of Soviet Union and implementation of neoliberal policies in housing sphere, entailing the right to buy the apartment and maintain the houses by the property owners.

Consequently, this cause a set of different scenarios of dealing w

ith those typologies. In the countries, which joined European Union in 2000s the revitalization of post-socialist mass housing stock was happening rather through «rainbowfication», which means painting the houses in various colors, as well interiors and public spaces were frequently cleaned up according to the strategy of this program. Despite that, as Owens Hatherley (2019) claims that mixture of socialist houses, social democratic urban policy, and neoliberal ownership patterns has had largely positive results on the outskirts of Polish, Czech, and Slovak (and, outside the EU, Belarusian) cities. Closer to East, in Ukraine, Russia and Central Asia dilapidation and merely private renovation is prevailed. 

Zooming into Estonian case, khrushchevka as a symbol is distinguished as a nationally perceived symbol and locally perceived one. On a macro-scale this residential typology is perceived as a symbol of Soviet occupation, despite its necessity and functionality of the former times. Locally, pinpointing the context of Ida-Virumaa, where khrushchovka is the most widely spread living typology, it is considered as a feature of marginality, entailing the inability of its residents to achieve a better life conditions, which is moving to a better housing typology or migrate to another country.

Even though, Estonia, being a part of European Union, partially implemented the renovation strategies of post-Soviet housing stock, the majority of them were done in Tallinn, leaving small towns of Eastern Estonia to deal with their housing maintenance on their own. Despite the sporadic attempts of the locals to take care of their dwellings, these living typologies are continuously decaying, raising the question:

How should we deal with those socialist housing legacies, which still serve as a living environment for millions of people across many post-Soviet countries?


References: Hatherley, Owens. “What next for Eastern Europe’s mass housing heritage?” Calvert Journal, 2019. Internet resource. Accessed on 25.04.2021.
Urban, Florian. “Prefab Moscow.” Tower and Slab: Histories of Global Mass Housing. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012, 127-143. 
LOREM IPSUM ︎M
LOREM IPSUM ︎M