Memories of Soviet Lithuania

MEMORIES OF SOVIET LITHUANIA UNDERSTANDING THE LIFESPAN OF SOVIET HOUSING BLOCKS

AUSTEJA GRABAUSKAITE

1

2

MEMORIES OF SOVIET LITHUANIA UNDERSTANDING THE LIFESPAN OF SOVIET HOUSING BLOCKS

by Austeja Grabauskaite 001015574-0 University of Greenwich ARCT-1014 BA Architecture Dissertation Academic Year 2020/2021 Tutor: Marko Jobst

Word count: 6249

Except where stated otherwise, this dissertation is based entirely on the author’s own work.

3

4

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Marko Jobst for your continuous support and to Arta, Dainius and Sandra for sharing their stories.

5

6

Contents

Abstract.................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction............................................................................................................ 10 Chapter ONE: Type

Creation ................................................................................................... 17

Influence .................................................................................................. 20

Chapter TWO: Memories

Talking about Architecture .................................................................... 24

Recorded Memories ............................................................................... 26

Relation to Internal Spaces .................................................................... 34

Chapter THREE: Remains

Facing demolition ................................................................................... 41

Extended Lifespan................................................................................... 44

30 Years On .............................................................................................. 46

Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 48 Bibliogrpahy............................................................................................................. 52

7

1.

Soviet Microrayon

8

ABSTRACT

Just before the end of the Second World War, Lithuania was occupied by the Soviet Union and remained under the Soviet regime for nearly 50 years (19441991) in that time period the country went through a lot of changes from industrial job opportunities in major cities to standardised housing scheme.

Effectively, the significant drawbacks the country was facing were resolved, however, the quality of the resolutions can be argued as not maintaining the initial success.

In this dissertation I will be discussing the attitudes to Soviet housing blocs from their birth (specifically in the late 1950’s to 1960’s period), to the pinnacle of the blocs’ lifespan (1970’s. and 1980’s) to their ‘death’ the present representation of how they stand nearly twenty years past their predicted lifespan of 20 years.

I will be focusing on the Soviet impact in Lithuania primarily, I will also look at the neighbouring countries that were a part of the Soviet Union to unpack how to overcome the arising problems that these housing blocs maintain.

9

INTRODUCTION

2.

Klaipeda, Lithuania 2015

10

In my home country Lithuania, major cities are occupied by countless numbers of identical housing blocks which are also scattered in neighbouring cities too. These housing blocks were created and built by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR or Soviet Union) during their occupation of Lithuania from the years 1944 till 1991, these housing blocks were originally built quickly around industrial parts of the city. These apartments were built for the workers to be close to the industrial sites, due to the aftermath of the Second World war, thousands of citizens were without a job or a home. During this period (1950’s) the state owned everything, ultimately meaning people couldn’t own any land or properties and were forced in some cases, to relocate in the country in hopes of finding work (in-migration). There were many similar cases where people were being driven out of the countryside, to major cities all at once, who all needed to be housed. The idea of mass standardised housing became an ideal solution for the Soviet Union, as they could control the cost of production, create more jobs and the larger number of the population was located in one area.

In this dissertation I will be discussing the importance and relevance of the existing remnants of Soviet architecture in Lithuania in the 21st century, specifically focusing on the design of the social housing blocks from their creation to their outlived lifespan. This topic of social housing is relevant due to the complications that the Soviet Union left behind in the design/construction phase which has left unresolved building issues today. Soviet architecture, es-

11

pecially the concrete housing block’s that have remained in many of the Eastern bloc countries even decades after the collapse of Communism, were originally built to accommodate masses of workers that were brought to major cities and remained as housing blocks to accommodate ordinary citizens later on. I will discuss whether these apartment blocks are worth saving, when they come with the history and memory of the Soviet era as well as the maintenance complications and how they could be potentially saved for future use. These Soviet blocks have arguably become immense national landmarks across Lithuania as well as other Eastern European countries, through their blunt concrete facades, they all are so similar in their appearance, making it very hard to distinguish what cities or countries they stand in when looked at side by side. I will also discuss the architectural identity that the Soviets enforced that took away national architectural individuality of many nations and whether that impacted those who lived in them.

For my methodology I have recorded a series of interviews with friends and family members who grew up and lived in the housing blocks during the 1970’s, to analyse their internal perception against the blunt concrete exterior that outsiders perceive. Looking at Nobel Prize winner Svetlana Alexievich’s work “Last Witnesses”, Alexievich interviewed the children who experienced the Second World war and lived through the aftermath, helping them retell their experiences and traumas of the war in very close attention to empathy and detail. Her work helped me approach the interview process to gather greater depth to what life was like under the Soviet regime. The interview questions were broadened to each person’s individual experiences that differed to oth-

12

ers, especially how each apartment differed to their neighbours and what made each apartment unique with the life it held within. I also looked at the works of architectural historian Naomi Stead, “Speaking of Buildings” where she addressed many faults in architectural academic writing, where the discipline is lost in the representation of the author ‘the architect being the one who speaks of and for buildings, and for the people in them… Buried deep in the discipline, in its mythologies, is an idea that most people can’t speak about buildings, that they don’t have the legitimacy and the expertise to do that - that is to preserve of architects’ (Stead 2019). Oral history is important in broadening the perceptions to the built environment, including the ‘invisible’ voices that are within that field (Gosseye 2019). The conclusion to ‘Speaking of Buildings’ is mainly a transcription of the conversation between Stead, Gosseye and Van der Plat which unpack the true nature of how architecture is perceived by everyone in society, that oral history needs to be recorded as time is against us and these stories can be lost. Additionally, they highlight the preservation of the voices and that the relationship between the oral and aural needs to work co-dependently.

In the interviews I recorded, all of them were translated from Lithuanian and Latvian, in that nature the voice is altered to myself and the reader, however, I tried to use their stories regardless to signify the unheard voices of the Soviet time in Eastern Europe. Due to the translation of the visual and audio, the recorded natural human mannerisms are not translated, the gestures, emotions and pauses are lost in the process. So, I experimented with typography design in my translation of those interviews, into a visual representation of those lost aspects, they are to reflect the qualities of speaking in person.

13

Time can reveal the truths behind any building, maintenance can become a problem, the architectural style can become ‘out of fashion’, it is important to also (from the architect’s perspective) to take into account the ‘after-life’ of any building and how it will outlive the occupant (Gosseye 2019). Soviet housing blocs have different ‘afterlives’ in different cities, they can be unpacked to three sections: first the influential life it has carried out and have expanded out of Europe to Cuba to Chile (Alonso and Palmarola, 2014). Secondly, citizens have recognised the buildings’ needs to be ‘saved’ and have flourished and been celebrated for its brutalist style (Bednarczyk, 2019) and third, the harsh reality of some Soviet remains to be deteriorating and their future uncertain, left to debate whether they will be saved or demolished (Mikhaylyuk, 2017). With the knowledge that the Soviets designed these buildings to have a lifespan of 20-25 years, raises questions on what to do when they have outlived it nearly double their lifespan, what do they give to their city, is the history and memory preserved, how can we learn from the Soviets’ ideal of standardized mass housing with new technologies?

14

15

CHAPTER ONE: TYPE

3.

1950’s first generation of Khrushchyovka housing blocks.

16

Creation

Lithuania had been under the soviet regime for half of the 20th century, within that time the Lithuanian people were put through countless forms of oppression from the Soviet Union, from collectivization to in-migration (Lieven 2005). During this period of time, along with the rest of Europe, Lithuania was facing a mass housing crisis, one of the concerning issues that was a result of the Second World War. Lithuania had already been occupied by the Soviet Union, they followed the Soviets implemented solution to the crisis: housing blocks, which in theory worked for many reasons as the regime could put numerous families under one roof into apartments, minimise the spatial elements to a literal minimum and use cheaper methods for construction.

The idea of these housing blocks dates back to when Vladimir Lenin was the leader of the Soviet Union (1920’s), he devised this idea of communal living, where four to five families would share a kitchen, outside area and would have a private living space that was for sleeping. Lenin also planned to ‘expropriate and resettle private apartments’ take away anything privately owned by the general public, and to put the control to the ‘new’ government. Under this proposal, nobody under the regime was allowed to privately own any land or property (Boym 2009). The first form of communal living was tested on existing properties that were previously privately owned, by the richer citizens were taken away from them and turned into said communal living accommodations.

Up until Lenin’s death (1924), this idealised new proposal for communal living

17

inspired many architects to start designing homes of much smaller and denser living space with the communal areas too, of course these were to be temporary housing. However, the idea was slightly amended by Nikita Khrushchev (in 1953) after the death of Lenin and Joseph Stalin, in which he proposed a similar solution for the housing crises; where in which he offered privately owned apartments for a small family that included a bedroom, living room and kitchen for one family rather than Lenin’s government owned option. Khrushchevs reasoning behind his further developed design, was a scheme he had hoped would minimise resistance against the socialist regime.

The first generation of Khrushchyovka (named after Nikita Khrushchev) housing blocks were five stories high, built around the 1950’s till 1960’s, the urban design around these housings encouraged the concept of ‘Garden City’ to be around them. These were the first kind of social housing that ordinary citizens could own; however, it had a process of people being put onto a list and not everyone could be allocated one as quickly, “preference was given to migrants, usually arriving through ‘organised channels’ of migration from the other Soviet Republics and needing apartments immediately upon arrival” (Hess, D. and Tammaru, T, 2019). This caused a higher demand for more housings to be built, which lead to the creation of the second-generation housing blocks (from the. 1960’s till 1970’s) that went up to nine and 12 stories high, with this generation, aspects such as lifts were incorporated, yet, the apartment living spaces were not further modified with each generation. The third-generation housing blocks (1980’s) increased even more, by going up to 16 and 22 stories.

With the fast rate of completion, the term “microrayons” was invented to re-

18

fer to the now new ‘mini-residential-cities’ that occupied main cities such as Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipeda (Dremaite 2017). The microrayons quickly became very dense with “5,000 and 15,000 people, while the size of housing estate districts varied even more, between 30,000 and 100,000” (Hess and Tammaru 2019) in the Baltic countries, the statistics were much larger in cities such as Moscow. The shift to higher builds, did not incorporate the element of ‘Garden City’ anymore as it became the ‘Concrete City’ due to the political conditions of city planning, rather the construction was set to be further industrialised by reducing the cost yet improving the quality of the builds simultaneously (Hess and Tammaru 2019).

19

Influence

Khrushchyovka housing blocks can also be found in Cuba, not only Eastern Europe, due to the spread of communism overseas, Cuba had links to the Soviet Union. In 1963, Cuba was struck by Hurricane Flora, that impacted the country immensely, the news was shared with Nikita Khrushchev and as a “gesture of solidarity” (Alonso and Palmarola, 2014, Khrushchev donated a factory to Cuba to produce Soviet type prefabricated housing blocks. This plan was not carefully inspected as the housing type was not designed for climates such as Cuba, it had been designed to protect from heavy snow loads rather than wind loads that had been the key problem to Cuba. It raised discussions, research to be done to better equip this design for Cuba, Pedro Ignacio Alonso and Hugo Palmarola two researchers and designers published “Panel” to show the journey of the prefabricated concrete panel through Cuba in the 1960’s and Chile in the1970s. This was the first time for the block type to be physically adapted to another country.

Cultural historian of Eastern Europe, David Crowley proposed a term to divide and differentiate the social modern architecture from Western modernism in to ‘Socmodernism 1 and 2’ he categorised Socmodernism 1 “in this sphere architects were expected to behave as technocrats; they were required not to produce buildings but types, with the result that housing design was removed from the sphere of art to engineering” (Crowley 2009). Crowley’s analogy helps explain the reasoning behind the lack of design that was put towards these blocks,

20

as they conform to the functionalist ideals and becomes a product. Through the first series of experiments, the design could not be relied on brick construction as it was too time demanding and this project needed to be built much quicker, so as experiments went further the design became more and more standardized (Goncharuk 2017). The role of the architect was very limited, as the architect was restricted to the initial design: the “type” of building had been produced, the architects at the time realised that the buildings were ultimately to become monotonous, as the only housing that was being built in the cities were housing blocks. This became the Soviets ideal, it was used all over the USSR countries, ironically reflecting their communist views, as the same type was spread wide,

4.

Soviet style housing blocks in Baracoa, Cuba 2006

21

the microrayons had little to no differences from microrayons in different cities, as they were housing blocks built densely in one space with no other forms of housing around. Unlike other capitalist countries where apartment blocks were incorporated into the city rather than made solely from them.

These housing blocks were very impressive in Europe during the 60’s and 70’s, as they were made quickly and cheaply, the construction period was also not long because the Soviets used prefabricated concrete panels that was then delivered on site, it only needed to be assembled. The evolution of these blocks grew more impressive through the decades through the scale of them, as they managed to vertically grow the urban living space in nearly every major city across the Eastern Bloc. From the Soviet perception, they believed through the growth of these blocks that they were a success under the socialist ideals of living: firstly, orientated around work and children going to school (that was nearby), secondly, through leisure and shopping and lastly using the apartments to rest, the idea of not being at home unless the residents were elderly or ill was enforced more. The design of the housing blocks and the microrayons conformed to the functionalism movement, as the architecture was purely to bring thousands of people to the city centres.

22

CHAPTER TWO: MEMORIES

5.

Staircase in Silute housing block, Lithuania 2020

23

Talking about Architecture

The Soviets enforced a building typology that was heavily monotonous, especially through the use of concrete, it was constantly repeated throughout Eastern Europe, and it all represented the unified front of the Soviet Union, it seemed to take away any ‘unique’ factors of the architecture itself. Architecture has an “effect on society at large” (Gosseye 2019), the microrayons were a form of society itself, from the time period it was built it is very hard to find the “invisible” voices “who can (also) speak of architecture and tell their own stories of what it is like to construct, experience, and live within buildings.” (Stead 2019) where we only heard the architects instead, who did not continue to experience the building after it was built.

As a remnant after 30 years after the fall of communism, it is much easier to analyse these living conditions through the eyes of the residents. Their perceptions range from the initial experience of their childhood memories, the childlike fondness of their home to a later adult realisation of how it was part of the regime. From the series of interviews I conducted, it revealed the individual experience is much more powerful than the architecture that surrounds them, they gave insight to how these memories and experiences revealed the true uniqueness in the building, which were the people. The interviewees reflected on their childhood and growing up in these soviet housing blocks, but since their childhood had moved out for many other non-related reasons, the overall answers I received were slightly unexpected on my behalf, from the research

24

knowledge it hinted that the life inside these buildings reflected the outside: to be cold and sad. However, in many answers, there was always a fun and eventful memory that arose, that changed the tone of the answers overall, the stories themselves were beautiful recollections.

The interviews reveal a more intimate relationship to the apartments, that could be assumed to be unexpected, however, it shows a natural relationship people have to buildings and especially homes. They do not recall the structural components nor the materiality, it is rather the atmospheres that were created through the people. More importantly these interviews are a better judgement of the housing blocks’ success and lifespan, since the fall of communism.

Through the act of speaking about buildings, the building can speak too and to some extent, it can be argued that the building is personified too. Referring to implemented uniformity through monotonous buildings, we can finally uncover where the unique and individual elements can be found; in the residents who occupies those spaces. British- Swiss philosopher, Alain de Botton, explains how domestic spaces speak to us “a home is merely any place that succeeds in making more consistently available to us the important truths which the wider world ignores” (de Botton 2006). That analogy can be applied to the residents of Soviet blocks during the regime, as well as after, as the space is within the uniformed microrayons, it still offers an escape from that world.

25

Recorded Memories

Through the journey of recording, many aspects of oral history are

lost through the transcription process, especially as these interviews were recorded, translated and re-written. These are a few short recollections of childhood memories, in an experimental form, to regain the emotive aspect of oral history.

26

“

As a child at the time everything seemed alright,

but regardless life on the other side of the curtain

always seemed better.

One of my mum’s friends had magazines “Burda” from

West Germany,

where one could really see the

REAL and the BEAUTIFUL

life,

which my mum’s friend and her children to the best of their abilities and financial capacity tried to reach and realise (home interior, clothing, recipes)

- At least something little from a

dream…

Arta Barzdina

27

”

“

I remember sitting by a window and looking out to see when someone from my family would come

home,

but during the day everyone was at work, the whole town was deserted,

our parents would also tell us

stories of bad people that would knock on doors and steal children and personal belongings,

so naturally as the older brother I felt the responsibility to protect our home, but I was terrified had someone actually knocked on the door who we didn’t know.

I remember how much I would scare my little sister with those stories, that we both ended up with our own hiding spots in the apartment, hers was

always under

the parent’s bed, looking back at it,

my older sisters would have laughed at us for this Dainius Grabauskas

28

”

6.

29

“

I have a particular memory

of going to Riga with my parents to visit a father’s friend or a colleague.

-I do not remember their name,

just that they were Russian and

high-ranking party members.

After the occupation the wealthy and intelligent were deported to Siberia leaving a lot of empty homes, where Russians would move in.

That is the scenario with this gentleman and his luxurious apartment fourth floor on the in an art nouveau building in central Riga.

I remember the pristine decors,

high ceilings, massive rooms

I especially liked their balcony with a roof and that looked over the park.

It was like taking a step back into the urban life of rich bourgeois Europeans that used to live there.

A complete contrast from our apartment.

Arta Barzdina

30

”

7.

31

“

I remember the first apartment, I moved to as a student, I lived with another girl who had also moved there from the country.

We were lucky enough to have been

allocated this apartment with a piano, although the space was tiny,

and there was little to no space to move around let alone dance,

but we danced nonetheless, our neighbours would come over, we’d sing,

someone was always by the piano, it was great.

Sandra Tamasauskiene

32

”

8.

33

Relation to Internal Spaces

Reviewing Soviet builds thirty years on, show clear signs of material and maintainability fault and can easily now be critiqued for its heavily monotonous design. The critique of the design and its use in microrayons became quickly apparent to residents as well as architects, “The optimism of the 1960’s had been replaced with the criticism voiced in the 1970’s” (Dremaite 2017). Dremaite’s comments that this was a concern for the remaining twenty years in Soviet Lithuania, with attempts to improve individuality in housing blocks from Lithuanian architects, it never had great impact on changing that perception.

These attempts included changing the visual elements, specifically the façade, it can be seen in the Klaipeda region, where the incorporation of red brick was introduced to enhance the individuality of one specific region. However, this design in particular failed in the same way the original design failed, it was repeated continuously and again became monotonous. During this period of ‘creating individuality’, Lithuanian architects still had to get approval from Moscow for the construction of these standardised designs (Dremaite 2017).

Which angered many architects, as this slowed down any form of progression in the design of standardised housing. Following Dremaite’s research, she translated the Soviet views of individuality and aesthetics in architecture; “The technology of industrial construction demands simple forms and minimum variety. However, even under such conditions, the question of expressiveness in architecture should not be omitted.

34

9.

Microrayon, Lazdynai (Vilnius) Lithuania

35

10.

Multi-apartement house designed by a group of architects, chief architect: Jokūbas Peras, in Kaunas, 1956

36

The individual architectural and artistic undertones must reveal themselves without exceeding limits of what is capable and reasonable” (Kazakova 2015).

Proving, individuality was not a necessity, if it was not from technical purpose, the additional decorative features did not need to be incorporated.

From the understanding of the communist views that the Soviets imposed, that assumption is thought to be translated into the living apartments, from the interviews it reveals the true aspect of individuality in the ‘uniformed’ buildings.

The uniformed and collective front of the exterior façade did not impact the same for the interior living, these spaces were all unique to the resident. Lithuanian researcher: Vilte Janusaukaite recorded her own series of interviews of current living residents in three microrayons in Vilnius, Lithuania: Lazdynai, Žirmunai and Karoliniškės. Through her findings, they suggest the attitudes towards these microrayons were influenced by the hierarchy of awarded prizes, as Lazdynai had been awarded the Lenin prize in 1974, the current residents were very pleased with their apartments and overall proud, the prize had left “highly optimistic impressions” from the 70’s to the present day (Janusaukaite 2019). Lazdynai was the first microrayon to have housed and estimate of 40,000 residents. In regard to the other microrayons the attitudes were more “moderate”, and the reviews were upfront about the living conditions 20 years on, as well as the “poor design” of the first apartments. However, in her data, Janusaukaite found that a few of the residents had been the original residents of these apartments, moved out and lived in the suburbs, different apartments, and had eventually returned to the Soviet housing blocks such as Lazdynai due to the convenience it offered to their daily routine. When designing the layout

37

of the microrayons, they were adapted to the industrial areas of the city to allow workers to live close by. Over time job opportunities where all over the city, and as the Soviet housing blocks were already standing when transportation links were being connected, it reconnected the microrayons to new city centres, hence, the convenience the residents enjoyed having. The microrayons are still incorporated in the new city centres, as some locations such as Lazdynai have proven to be easily accessible.

Through speaking to past and current residents, the overall perception of the uniformed living changes when uncovering the unspoken oral history within these spaces. The interview responses, Dremaite’s and Janusauskaite’s research reveals the unspoken individuality within the microrayons and housing blocks.

With many design faults these building types did not influence a life of uniformity, as the regime projected for, which could arguably reveal the individual aspects that were longed for in the Lithuanian architects designs. Rather than the building reflecting different national unique aesthetics it was actually the people who influenced the non-uniformity.

38

39

CHAPTER THREE: REMAINS

“The Soviet concept of the dormitory suburb was a progressive and future-orientated ideal. Those idealistic images seem to endure in the mind even though they’ve wholly divorced from reality nowadays. We live among the ruins of a vast empire utopia has proved itself a dystopia several times and to some extent we’re all traumatised by the disappearance of the future-orientated idea of socialist progress, even those who never wanted anything to do with it. It’s why our native land is the way it is today.” (Rogalev, 2015)

11.

Deteriorating Soviet housing block in Lithuania, 2015.

40

Facing Demolition

After the fall of communism in the early 1990’s, many countries that were part of the Eastern Bloc, managed to catch up the Western world, as well as adapt to it. However, predominantly in smaller countries like the Baltics, these housing blocks remained, due to the countries struggle to catch up to the growth of the Western world’s economy, firstly, these were already existing homes, so the buildings remained to accommodate thousands, the countries used what they had for accommodation (Lieven 2005). Progressively over time, all of the Soviet builds are now at different phases of their lifespan, in a few eastern European cities the brutalist architecture is being celebrated and have become a desired form of accommodation.

However, there are a few cases where these blocks face the threat of demolition entirely. In 2017 there was an extensive resettlement program proposed for the residents of first and second generation Krushchyovka apartments, announced by Moscow mayor Sergey Sobyanin, that would involve demolition of said buildings (Mikhaylyuk 2017). The program expands to countries who were in the former Soviet Union, there were no further details other than the first draft, whether this program will take action, it raised worry for many current residents as there were mixed reactions to the news. Russian journalist: Vitaly Mikhaylyuk, conducted a series of interviews with Moscow residents of a Krushchyovka apartments, there were long term residents who had lived there for nearly 20 years, that wanted to stay there, as their apartment had qualities

41

12. + 13.

Two living rooms in Krushchyovka apartments in Moscow, Russia 2017.

42

such as high ceilings, good sound insulation (musicians) and the resettlement program could mean never finding such a space again or even be able to stay in the same neighbourhood. On the other hand, there were residents who lived in much dire apartments, such as a resident from the fifth floor, that have leaks through the ceiling every time it rains, accompanied with pigeons who lived in the ceiling. The interview feedback revealed the reality of living in mass produced housing, especially privatised apartments, which limited the repair the buildings needed. This program whether it will take place, will take roughly 15-20 years, during that period 1.6 million people will need to be re-accommodated, roughly 8,000 homes demolished (Mikhaylyuk 2017).

In Vilnius, Lithuania, residents voted against the demolition as they were happy with their apartments, regardless of the need of renovation (The Economist data 2020). For many these housing blocks have become cheaper living alternatives and the threat of demolition will enforce them to either move further out of the city or succumb to out of financial budget housing. If it keeps coming to this point of threat of demolition, it seems that unless there’s an already existing space to live in for the current residents, the residents will vote to stay. The existing living standards are not the best, however if there were inexpensive refurbishment options to keep them safe, the housing blocks would not need to face the fall. This program is uncertain when it will be ‘greenlighted’ by officials, but it all falls on a vote by the residents who live there right now.

43

Extended Lifespan

Without facing demolition, how could these buildings potentially be saved?

Daniel Baldwin Hess, a professor at the University of Buffalo, looked at the current state of the soviet housing blocks and created a list of lessons to take away from what the soviets created, there were a total of seven lessons. The lessons include social and economic factors, and it is based on the initial design process and what the soviet union have left behind because of it. It all leads to the seventh lesson of what we should do with these buildings now “(a) do-nothing, (b) downsize, (c) demolish (and replace) and (d) renovate” (Hess, 2019). Hess further analyses the potential of them, and like other European countries a solution to what could be. Out of four possible options, renovating is the most optimistic and could possibly be the cheapest option against demolition. The Lithuanian National Radio television interviewed Urbanist Zivile Simkute and Architect Egidijus Kasakaitis where they touched upon that future residents should need to know the history of these buildings beforehand and have an understanding of the type of housing block they live in (LRT 2021). This was a possible solution for privately owned apartments to resolve the issue at hand on their own, as renovating an entire microrayon is too expensive for the Lithuanian government (LRT 2021).

44

14.

Abandoned Soviet block.

45

30 Years On

In neighbouring country: Poland, after the 30-year mark of the end of communism, the country has “undergone a remarkable transformation” overcoming many issues such as widespread poverty (Kapur 2018). Author and journalist: Akash Kapur spoke to citizens of a Polish town, Gdansk, to discuss the local Soviet housing blocks, called Falowiecs, that were to have housed collectively an “estimated 12,000” residents. The current residents of Falowiecs spoke about how much their town has developed and over that period the previous residents who had left the town, following an idealised “American Dream”, had gradually started to return once again as the Soviet housing had inevitably been a “better thought-out living space” in comparison to the suburban housing.

The process of improving the reputation of communist housing, in Poland, has been difficult, it has taken a new generation of Poles to show the detachment of the Soviet regime, that they do not conform to the history that is left behind and the citizens are “less agonized” by the history, as well as the architecture.

The generational factor is a very interesting component in the “transformation” as it reminds the previous generation of residents that there is no longer a communist regime intact, as obvious as it is, for many residents who remained to live in Soviet housing are daily reminded of the history and it is the young people who are changing the overall perception of what these buildings are to what they could be. Lithuanian Historian: Marija Dremaite also talks about the “generational detachment” of the people born after the fall of communism, that she noticed through her students, where they were upfront about their opin-

46

ions of the regime and the architecture juxtaposed to the later generations who were overall more hesitant to share (Dremaite 2017).

The future of Soviet housing blocks is very uncertain, without demolishing, what can be done to save millions of homes? Following Hess’s lessons, ‘renovating’ is the most optimistic of all, however, added to that factor, younger generations need to be a part of that process, as that has been proven successful in Gdansk (Kapur 2018).

15.

Revitalised Soviet housing blocks, Gdansk, Poland 2018

47

CONCLUSION

The legacy of Soviet housing blocks can be perceived in two ways, firstly, through the success of accommodating thousands of residents, with local amenities (of schools, jobs and shops), the Soviets had solved one of the major problems that the Second World war implemented that was the mass housing crisis. Secondly, through the current perception of the state that these buildings are in, especially their uncertain future, as they are evidently not the new builds that were in the 70’s. The success of the housing block design was arguably a momentarily success, where it was a clear solution to an imminent problem, they had a cheap and fast production rate which was impressive at the time, however, it seems that after the first generation of these housing blocks the new goals were to add more apartments to house more citizens rather than improve the quality of the builds.

Reviewing the housing blocks ‘lifespan’, from the initial design and creation to their current state, it transitions from what was once a highly desired option for living spaces to neglected social housing blocks. Some of these Soviet remains stand in better condition than others, where some face the threat of ‘death’ (demolition). As these builds were initially owned by the state, once the regime collapsed privately owned apartments were reinstated, this created a loophole for the future of an entire building, as it is up to the residents to keep up with the maintenance and general upkeeping. The concept of privatising the apartments neglects the overall need to keep good maintenance, as the res-

48

idents and communities have changed over time, not all neighbours are willing to help each-other out as they once did before. Aside from the individual apartments the one shared space is the corridor, which overtime has become an isolated space for the residents and ‘unused’ it no longer encourages neighbours to interact with one another. Now that the blocks have outlived their 20–25-year lifespan, the design flaws are more evident than ever before, as they stand by new modern high-rise buildings they appear to be withered and constantly deteriorating more each year. The side-by-side comparison of the new and old apartment blocks reveal the unspoken tensions between them, raising questions of possible demolitions or heavy repairs to even out the ‘eye-sore’ aspect that they currently have.

Buildings such as the Soviet housing blocks will inevitably deteriorate and ‘die’, however, these buildings were part of a much larger scheme, the Soviet Union had much greater impact on smaller countries like Lithuania, they signify an oppressed period in their recent history. So, the unspoken history of people within these spaces needs to be recorded, to amplify the stories and their firsthand experiences of this specific period in time. In written history too, for future use of architects and designers, these standardised apartments did not offer uniqueness at first glance, but it did not stop people living their lives inside.

In addition, it can be used as a guide for further progression of the apartment designs with the knowledge of the residents it can offer true insight to how buildings are used every day.

49

The Soviets implemented a very uniformed as well as practical society, from the microrayons that were prefabricated, and mass produced to then housing thousands of residents. Everything seemed to be controlled, with no place left for the citizens to express ‘non-uniformity’ especially outside their homes; overtime the citizens have showed the relationship they have had with these buildings, where they are personal and intimate. Years later, they can remember these buildings as being ‘beautiful’ for holding those linked memories. Which reflect on what a lifespan of a building can really be, through the relationship it has with the occupants rather than those who commissioned the buildings and what they deem to be successful or not. The voices of those who experience a building can reveal the true-life buildings have, through their attachment of security and memory.

The concept of building lifespans can not only be perceived by the condition they stand in after years and years, but they can also be perceived and understood by the memories that the residents hold. The Soviet era of housing blocks are assumed to contain the connotations of the socialist regime with its history in the walls and always reflect that period within the corridors. However, from the interviews of the residents that took part, they uncover joyful memories, they share their stories about happy events that were not restricted by the blocks and clear the assumptions of the life always being weighed down by the Soviet union. It signifies the matter of architecture being the background to everyday life, where life certainly is affected but not changed by the world outside their door. Furthermore, they indicated the power of memory and emotional investment that is attached to one’s home, regardless if they do not live

50

there anymore, good memories were still found when discussing these now Soviet remains.

The unspoken voices have shown that, regardless, of the history that these buildings are a part of, they can continue serving their intended purpose as homes. As seen in Gdansk, Soviet housing blocks have been ‘revived’ and are very popular amongst the citizens right now, through renovation, changing the aesthetics by adding colour, the microrayon has been transformed and the lifespan, ultimately ‘extended’. From unpacking that process, it is through time and generational perception, the new perspective adapts to these existing remains to becoming useful once again, without destroying significant parts of history. Buildings like the Soviet apartment blocks are adaptable in that aspect, as they are blank canvases to work on and can be added to. With greater developed technology and research, they can be ‘saved’ as the approach is thought out. The Soviet Union was an immense part of recent history for small countries like Lithuania, keeping these buildings that signify a very hard time is quite easy to justify as a reason to demolish, on the other hand, each apartment window can retell a unique story of the same time period that needs to be told.

Using those stories along with the memories of these spaces, we can resolve the existing issues of the buildings as they stand, they can also highlight the ‘beautiful’ moments that are in the architecture and how they could be preserved. In order to learn from previous architectural mistakes, we need to resolve them from the unheard voices that used the buildings, as they hold a true understanding between people and buildings.

51

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Online and Book sources Alexievich, S., 2019. Last Witnesses. Penguin Random House.

Alonso, P. and Palmarola, H., 2014. Panel.

Alonso, P., 2014. How A Soviet Concrete Panel Housing System Came To Cuba And Chile. [online] Cca.qc.ca. Available at: <https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/articles/issues/5/journeys-and-translation/1166/how-a-soviet-concrete-panel-housing-system-came-to-cuba-and-chile> [Accessed 22 November 2020].

Bednarczyk, A., 2019. Bloki: Poland’s Architecture Journey Through Communism - Greyscape. [online] Greyscape. Available at: <https://www.greyscape.com/can-politics-ever-be-separated-from-architecture-poland/> [Accessed 17 December 2020].

Boym, S., 2009. Common Places. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp.124-125.

Burneika D., Ubarevičienė R., Baranuskaitė A. (2019) Soviet Housing Estates in Vilnius, Lithuania: Socio-ethnic Structure and Future(-Less?) Perspectives. In: Hess D., Tammaru T. (eds) Housing Estates in the Baltic Countries. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham.

Crowley D (2009) Socmodernism and the architecture of leisure in Eastern/Central Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. In: Helme S (ed) Different modernisms, different avant-gardes: problems in Central and Eastern European Art after World War II. Proceedings of the Art Museum of Estonia, Tallinn De Botton, A., 2006. The Architecture Of Happiness. 1st ed. London: Penguin books.

Dremaite, M. and Sužiedėlis, D., 2017. Baltic Modernism. DOM Publishers.

2019. Eastern Blocks. Poznań: Zupagrafika.

The Economist. 2020. In The Baltic States, Many People Are Stuck In Khrushchev-Era Flats. [online] Available at: <https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/08/15/in-the-baltic-states-manypeople-are-stuck-in-khrushchev-era-flats> [Accessed 2 November 2020].

Gogua, G., 2021. The Beauty Of Soviet Architecture. [online] MyAngle. Available at: <http://myangle.net/en/angle/447-beauty-soviet-architecture> [Accessed 17 November 2020].

52

Goncharuk, D., 2017. A Clash Of Bricks, Blocks & Panels: The Timeline Of Soviet Mass Housing Construction. [online] Strelka Mag. Available at: <https://strelkamag.com/en/article/protokhruschevki> [Accessed 20 December 2020].

Gosseye, J., Stead, N. and Van der Plaat, D., 2019. Speaking Of Buildings. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Greyscape. 2020. Bloki: Poland’s Architecture Journey Through Communism - Greyscape. [online] Available at: <https://www.greyscape.com/can-politics-ever-be-separated-from-architecture-poland/> [Accessed 26 November 2020].

Hess, D. and Tammaru, T., 2019. Housing Estates In The Baltic Countries. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Kapur, A., 2018. Can Poland’s Faded Brutalist Architecture Be Redeemed? (Published 2018). [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/t-magazine/poland-brutalism-architecture.html> [Accessed 10 December 2020].

Kaunietis, R., 2009. Laisvės Kovotojų Prisiminimai. Vilnius: Margi Raštai.

Laurinėnaitė-Šimelevičienė, J., 2019. Lithuania | UNESCO World Heritage Sites To Visit In Lithuania. [online] Lietuva.lt. Available at: <https://lietuva.lt/en/naujienos/unesco-world-heritage-sites-to-visit-in-lithuania/> [Accessed 22 December 2020].

Leonid, P., Bronovitskaya, A., Kazakova, O. and Pavlova, L., 2015. Leonid Pavlov. Milano: Electa.

Lieven, A., 2005. The Baltic Revolution. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, p.316.

LRT, 2021. Experts Will Delve Into The Specifics Of Soviet Apartment Buildings: Prepare A Guide On How To Renovate And Install Apartment Interiors. [video] Available at: <https://www.lrt.lt/ mediateka/irasas/2000136330/ekspertai-gilinsis-i-sovietiniu-daugiabuciu-specifika-parengs-gida-kaip-atnaujinti-ir-irengti-butu-interjerus> [Accessed 10 January 2021].

Mikhaylyuk, V., 2017. The Condemned: Living In A Khrushchyovka. [online] Rbth.com. Available at: <https://www.rbth.com/longreads/khrushchyovki/> [Accessed 17 November 2020].

Mmcentras.lt. 2020. The Hierarchy Of Buildings In Soviet Lithuania. [online] Available at: <http:// www.mmcentras.lt/cultural-history/cultural-history/architecture/19441954-the-stalinist-period-in-architecture/the-hierarchy-of-buildings-in-soviet-lithuania/77658> [Accessed 27 November 2020].

Nevanlinna, A., 2007. Industry And Modernism. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, p.20.

Rbth.com. 2020. The Condemned: Living In A Khrushchyovka. [online] Available at: <https:// www.rbth.com/longreads/khrushchyovki/> [Accessed 25 November 2020].

53

Rogalev, E., 2015. Concretopia: Searching For The Secret Meaning Of The Suburbs In Eastern Europe. [online] The Calvert Journal. Available at: <https://www.calvertjournal.com/features/ show/4028/photography-post-soviet-city-egor-rogalev-concretopia-suburbs> [Accessed 2 October 2020].

Toleikis, V., n.d. Pasakojimai Prabudus. Vilnius: UAB Petro ofsetas.

Image Sources Cover Photo: Grey Space, 2021. [image] Available at: <https://www.greyscape.com/can-politics-ever-be-separated-from-architecture-poland/> [Accessed 14 January 2021].

1. Ground News, 2019. [image] Available at: <https://ground.news/article/r_kcpeuw/does-auckland-intensification-mean-soviet-tower-block-apartments-greater-auckland> [Accessed 14 January 2021].

2. Budanti Klaipeda, 2018. [image] Available at: <https://www.bundantiklaipeda.lt/jei-valdai-miesto-daugiabucius-valdai-ir-miesta/> [Accessed 14 January 2021].

3. Bloomberg CityLab, 2017. [image] Available at: <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-08/the-disappearing-mass-housing-of-the-soviet-union> [Accessed 14 January 2021].

4, 5, 6, 7, Sandra Tamasauskiene’s photos 8. 15Min, 2015. [image] Available at: <https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/istorija/gyvenimas-lazdynuose-pirmuju-gyventoju-akimis-582-475606> [Accessed 14 January 2021].

9. Dremaite, M. and Sužiedėlis, D., 2017. Baltic Modernism. DOM Publishers.

10. ManoNamai, 2014. [image] Available at: <https://www.manonamai.lt/lt/dalyvauk-ir-laimek/g-23601-senu-daugiabuciu-griovimas-ar-tai-butu-problemos-sprendimas> [Accessed 14 January 2021].

11, 12. 2017. [image] Available at: <https://www.rbth.com/longreads/khrushchyovki/> [Accessed 14 January 2021].

13. Gogua, G., 2021. The Beauty Of Soviet Architecture. [online] MyAngle. Available at: <http:// myangle.net/en/angle/447-beauty-soviet-architecture> [Accessed 2 January 2021].

14. The New York Times Magazine: Singapore, 2018. [image] Available at: <https://tsingapore.com/ article/poland-brutalism-architecture-housing-design> [Accessed 14 January 2021].

54

55