Relation to Internal Spaces

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.

9. Microrayon, Lazdynai (Vilnius) Lithuania

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

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

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.

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.