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
