Influence

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,

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

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.

CHAPTER TWO: MEMORIES

5. Staircase in Silute housing block, Lithuania 2020