thesis

PERSPECTIVES FOR MASS SOCIALIST HOUSING

1

Politecnico di Milano School of Architecture Urban Planning Construction Engineering Master of Science in Urban Planning and Policy Design

Master Thesis A.Y. 2019/2020 Student: Yevheniia Likhachova 893836 Supervisor: Prof. Massimo Bricocoli Co-supervisor : Sofya Borushkina

CONTENT

ABSTRACT 8 INTRODUCTION 11 I.

ODESA: CITY PROFILE

13

Location 15 Introduction to Odesa Strategic city on the coast of the Black Sea

17

Historical timeline From early Greek settlement to major city in sovereign Ukraine

22

City urban evolution Steady growth over centuries

24

Population dynamics Shrinkage, migration, change in ethnical composition

26

II. SOCIALIST MASS HOUSING IN USSR

31

Architecture and ideology in USSR Role of the socialist central state in the housing construction

33

Post-war urban planning in Odesa Beginning of the extensive mass housing construction

40

III. PRESENT AND FUTURE OF PANEL HOUSING IN FORMER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES

45

Perspectives for mass socialist housing 47 Mass socialist housing in diverse socio-economic conditions: The cases of Russia, Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Ukraine Moscow, Russia The «Renovation» [demolition] of Khrushchevki

50

Germany 52 Renovation and rethinking of Plattenbauten Czech Republic Rainbow paneláks

54

Ukraine 56 Policies, change of ownership structure, absence of complex renovation measures

Spaces of mass housing Unused potential and informal practices

62

Atlas of mass socialist housing in Odesa Series, typologies, generations

69

Atlas of vernacular architecture Informal transformation practices

87

A discussion on the soviet legacy 116 From stigmatization to post-communist nostalgia Public discourse Khrushevki as a place of cultural heritage

122

Communities in Khrushchevkas From socialist collective identity to hyper-individualization

127

Conclusion 133 Final remarks

IV. Interviews 135

List of figures

156

List of tables

159

Bibliography 160 List of web-sites

165

ABSTRACT (English) The central topic of the thesis research is the socialist mass housing estates in Odesa, Ukraine. Soviet social housing was constructed under the governance of Khrushchev in 1950’ - 1980’ across all the Soviet Union, including Ukraine. The Soviet ideological machine had an immense impact over the urban fabric and social arrangement of socialist city: housing was an instrument that strengthened the positions of the central state, it served to confirm the given ideas and stabilize a social order; it was a product of extensive industrialization process and demonstrated the state’s productive power.

Today soviet housing estates found itself in a radically different social, economic and political conditions. Which transformations occurred in generic mass housing over last decades? Can it be re-evaluated and become an adequate alternative solution to housing problem in Ukraine? What are the perspectives for mass socialist housing in Ukraine? Different former socialist countries took different paths regarding the mass housing - from almost complete state-initiated renovation in Germany to top-down demolition of all the mass housing estates in Moscow. In Ukraine mass housing districts undergo a protracted crisis characterized by the physical decay, widespread stigmatization, absence of complex state interventions and lack of strong local initiatives. The discussion revolves around three topics: the spaces of mass housing, current public discourse on soviet legacy, and community life in mass housing estates. Selection and development of these topics were based on the interviews held with the residents of mass socialist housing estates in Odesa. Interviews show that, although there are many issues arising in soviet housing districts, mainly related to its’ structural problems and public spaces maintenance, it still does have a spatial qualities that make it adaptable is a relatively easy way to current residents’ expectations; and, more importantly, the socialist mass housing is a part of Ukrainian history, culture and society – it has a cultural significance, it’s embedded in the collective memory of the whole society.

8

ABSTRACT (Italian) Il tema centrale dell’elaborato di tesi riguarda l’edilizia sociale di massa dell’era socialista in Odesa, Ucraina. Le case popolari sovietiche sono state costruite durante il governo di Khrushchov da 1950 al 1980 in tutta l’Unione Sovietica, Ucraina compresa. La macchina ideologica sovietica ha avuto un impatto immenso sul tessuto urbano e sull’assetto sociale della città socialista: l’edilizia abitativa era uno strumento che rafforzava le posizioni dello stato centrale, serviva a confermare le idee date e a stabilizzare un ordine sociale; era il prodotto di un esteso processo di industrializzazione dimostrando il potere produttivo dello stato.

Oggi i complessi residenziali sovietici si trovano in condizioni sociali, economiche e politiche profondamente diverse. Quali trasformazioni sono avvenute nelle abitazioni di massa negli ultimi decenni? Questi edifici possono essere rivalutati e diventare una soluzione alternativa adeguata al problema dell’edilizia abitativa in Ucraina? Quali sono le prospettive per l’edilizia socialista di massa in Ucraina? Diversi paesi ex socialisti hanno intrapreso strade diverse per quanto riguarda le abitazioni di massa dalla ristrutturazione quasi totale intrapresa dallo Stato in Germania alla demolizione effettuata tramite politiche top-down di tutti i complessi di edilizia residenziale di massa a Mosca. In Ucraina i quartieri delle case popolari soffrono di una crisi prolungata caratterizzata dal degrado fisico, dalla stigmatizzazione diffusa, dall’assenza di interventi statali strutturati e dalla mancanza di iniziative locali forti. La discussione ruota intorno a tre temi: gli spazi delle case popolari, il discorso pubblico attuale sull’eredità sovietica e la vita comunitaria nei complessi residenziali di massa. La selezione e lo sviluppo di questi temi si sono basati sulle interviste ai residenti delle case di edilizia residenziale socialista di massa in Odesa. Le interviste mostrano che, sebbene nei quartieri residenziali sovietici sorgano molti problemi, principalmente legati a fattori strutturali e alla manutenzione degli spazi pubblici, le caratteristiche spaziali degli edifici li rendono facilmente adattabili alle nuove esigenze contemporanee, soddisfacendo le aspettative dei residenti; e, cosa ancora più importante, l’edilizia popolare socialista è parte della storia, della cultura e della società ucraina - ha un significato culturale, essendo radicata nella memoria collettiva dell’intera società.

9

INTRODUCTION Millions of Ukrainians and hundreds of thousands of Odessans — approximately 20% of the city population — currently live in 5-storey standard housing blocks that were built between 1957 and 1985 under Nikita Khrushchev governance. Characterized as “perhaps the most ambitious governmental housing program in human history,” from 1950s onwards, this has been literally the only constructed type of housing in all the communist countries, including Ukraine. 108 million people – half the population of the USSR – moved out of overcrowded slums into new housing between 1956 and 1965. Today urban areas of mass housing are still dominant segment of the overall housing stock. Modernization and reconstruction of such districts have to be a priority for the city planning, yet today it is not a case in Ukraine.

Despite the general deterioration, living in Soviet mass housing districts or “mikrorayon” remains popular, mainly because of the low rent price in such areas. These districts are located predominantly in the periphery of the city and are composed by small functional apartments. At the moment of construction, buildings were accommodated within a complex of public services including parks, schools, kindergartens, sports facilities and food stores. Mikrorayons rendered the ideal vision of modern community lifestyle. Today these Soviet city relics are the subject of discourse among architects, urban planners, sociologist, etc.; it is also a challenge for a new society.

(1) Moscow Urban Forum: An interview with Rem Koolhas; Excerpts from «Strelka Mag» journal

“[…] I’m deeply admiring of what he [Khrushchev] did– the amount of housing he created in a very short time, the simplicity of that housing, and actually the quality of that housing, and open spaces next to them is for me a really important paradigm particularly because it was an articulation of accommodation of intelligence, beauty, simplicity, and equality, and I think that culmination of activities, of values, is very difficult to discover today. But I also see that a lot of the substance is that you can no longer maintain it and that something needs to happen about it.“ (1)

11

ODESA: CITY PROFILE

ODESA

Black Sea

14

LOCATION Odesa is situated in the South part of Ukraine, on the coast of the Black Sea, 450 km from the capital of the country Kyiv.

Belarus Russia

Poland

Slovakia Hungary

Kyiv

Moldova

ODESA

Romania

Fig. 1. Map of Ukraine Fig. 2. Satellite image of Odesa

15

INTRODUCTION TO ODESA Strategic city on the coast of the Black Sea

Major harbour of the Black Sea

(2) State statistical data od.ukrstat. gov.ua from 01.01.2019

Population:

Main destination of internal tourism

1 013 292 (2) — the 3rd populous city in Ukraine

Total Area: Location:

South of Ukraine, 450 km from Kyiv

Foundation:

1794

Terrain topography:

Flat

Total housing stock: (3) Data from the Odessa City Council, Department of Capital Construction

236.9 km2

Khrushchevkas:

57 075 372 m2 1023 buildings (3)

Odesa is a vibrant and cosmopolitan city in the south part of Ukraine. The city was officially founded by Empress Catherine the Great in 1794. It was formerly one of the most affluent and ethnically diverse cities in the Russian Empire, later for 70 years Odesa was a part of the Ukrainian SSR, and more recently the city found itself being a part of a sovereign state. Many Odessans imagine their city as a ‘state within a state,’ a place that exists outside the nation. Yet they remain ensnared practically and ideologically in institutions that constitute them as citizens and subjects in a Ukrainian state. (Richardson,2008) Today Odesa the 3rd populous city in Ukraine with 1 013 159 inhabitants within a wider Odesa Region population of 2 380 308 people.

The history of the current territory of Odesa has roots deep in the ancient times. In V cent. BC. it was a large Greek settlement called Istrian Harbor.

In 1440 a small Tatar settlement Khadjibey replaced the Greek settlement.

It was later under Lithuanian control, and then passed into the domain of the Ottoman Sultan in 1529 and remained in Ottoman hands until the Empire’s defeat in the Russo-Turkish War of 1792.

17

Russian Empire: City foundation by Empress Catherine the Great The city was officially founded following the mandate of the Empress Catherine the Great in the end of 18 century, in 1794, during Russian imperial expansion into the Black Sea area. The foundation of the port and city of Odessa was entrusted to the General Governor Joseph de Ribas and the Dutch engineer Franz de Volan. In the 19th century the city experienced a burst of economic development due to favourable mix of geography, government policies, and international and domestic developments.

(Richardson, 2008) Merchants were attracted to the city because of its location on the Black Sea, close the markets of the Mediterranean and western Europe; the growth of the region was encouraged by the policies such as land grants and tax exemptions for settlers from western Europe and the Ottoman Empire, personal freedom for peasants from Ukrainian and Russian provinces. The development was also facilitated through statefinanced construction of the harbour and port facilities and giving it a freeport status. The local authorities had a considerable freedom to develop local economy competitiveness. The city achieved a prominent commercial position as a biggest harbour of the Russian Empire, and its growth was even further bolstered by the development of the railway infrastructures in 1860s-1870s. The railway became a second pole towards which the city gravitated. It facilitated immigration flows and industrial development. The city doubled in size and expanded beyond the original free-trade zone. The port remained a key factor in the city’s growth, but became less important than in the first period of the city development, when the urban growth was predominantly influenced by it.

Fig. 3. Drawing of Odesa, 1850’

In this period Odesa experienced a high rates of the population growth, attracting heterogeneous ethnic and national groups. Merchants from European states such as Greece, Italy and Germany were one of the major groups. Odessa was the fourth Russian city in terms of population after St. Petersburg, Moscow and Warsaw. It exhibited an exceptional rate of urban growth, doubling its population every twenty-five years. By 1897 it had the highest percentage of foreigners in any Russian city and more than half of its population was born in other provinces (gubernii, sing. guberniia) or abroad. (Sifneos, 2017) The Jews were one of the most important groups of citizens, constituting 1/3 of the city population. Russians and Ukrainians

18

Fig. 4. Plan of Odesa, 1894

accounted for approximately 60 per cent of the population. There were also immigrants from Near Eastern nations, the United States, China, and Japan. According to the 1897 census, the city was home to people who spoke some fifty-five languages and hailed from more than thirty countries.

Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Odessa’s elites strongly identified as being European and oriented towards the West. Diverse ethnic groups coexisted and interacted primarily through commercial and maritime economic activities. Population groups that came from abroad, as in the case of Odessa during the first decades of its existence, constituted the majority of their inhabitants and, initially at least, outnumbered the natives of the host imperial power. (Sifneos, 2017) Architecture of the city in this period have been heavily influenced by French and Italian styles such as Art Nouveau, Renaissance and Classicism.

The first city neoclassical grid plan was designed in this period by the Flemish engineer François Sainte de Wollant. The city plan constitutes a regular grid divided into blocks. The residential areas were located on a high plateau, the port - on a lower-level coastal strip. Thus, the city was separated in residential and industrial areas located in different levels. The construction of a theatre in the coastal area was of great importance in the formation of a public center. The policies were dividing the residents in different areas of the city according to their nationality. For instance, Greeks and Armenians from Western Europe had to settle in different parts of the city around the squares with churches.

USSR: Socialist and industrial period In the beginning of XX cent. the city experienced an economic crisis the shutdown of industries, unemployment, foreign capital outflow. Many radical political movements started to appear - such as socialist, nationalist, monarchist and anarchist political parties. In 1921 the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was established. Odesa became one of the largest centres of the Soviet Union.

In the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th the First World War, the revolutions, and the Civil War had a dramatic impact on the city: trade routes were cut off, and many factories were closed, while most of the

20

shipping fleet was removed by the White Guards (Hontar 2002, 330). In 1920’ under the first Five Year Plan, Odessa’s industries were reconstructed and the city became one of the largest centers of trade in the Soviet Union.

During the period the the Second World War Odesa was a subject under the Romanian administration governance. In this period 80% of Soviet Jews were killed, and the city’s ethical heterogeneity dropped down significantly.

The destruction in Odessa during the Second World War was much less severe than in other cities in Ukraine. In the postwar years, resources were directed towards reviving the economy and rebuilding infrastructure such as factories, hospitals, sanatoriums, and the port. By the mid 1950s many new ships had been acquired and the port was handling more cargo than in the prewar period. The city’s population grew between 1959 and 1970 largely as a result of migration from the countryside. The city had become a major tourist destination within the Soviet Union, hosting more than a million guests annually.

The most important transformations in the structure of the city in the soviet period were made after the Khrushchev housing reform in the second half of the 1950s - 1960s. These reforms brought a number of radical changes in the sphere of urban planning and architectural activity of the USSR pre-fabricated mass housing units or so-called “khrushchevki” were built all across the city peripheries.

Sovereign Ukraine Starting from the middle of 20th century the systemic crisis of Soviet governance and society started to occur. In 1991 Ukrainian parliament adopted The Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine and the country became a sovereign state for the first time in its’ history. Odessa became one of the main business, economic and cultural centers in the country. In the conditions of state independence the role and importance of the city increases significantly. The city is the main «sea gate» and the largest harbor of Ukraine. Although, since its formation in 1991, the country has experienced a challenging period of transition in terms of politics, the economy and demographics. The long-term transition out of the Soviet system, but also the more recent internal conflicts and occupation of Crimea by Russia, have impacted hard upon the Ukrainian economy.

21

HISTORICAL TIMELINE From early Greek settlement to major city in sovereign Ukraine

19th century Paleolithic - 1789

1789 - 1921

From Greek settlement to Ottoman fortress

Russian Empire

Palaeolithic. The first traces of the earliest inhabitants; V cent. BC. A large Greek settlement Istrian Harbor; XIV cent. Occupation by the Golden Horde; XV cent. Foundation of a Khadjibey fortress by Grand Duchy of Lithuania; XVI cent. Ottoman Empire fortress Yeni Dünya.

1789. Conquest of Khadjibey and Yeni Dünya fortresses by Russian Empire

22

1794 Order of Catherine the Great to build a city and a harbor of Odesa The city obtained a porto franco status - all imports in transit were exempted from taxation.

Policies such as land grants and tax exemptions for settlers from Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire attracted foreign merchants. The city became a secure naval port and one of the world’s most important centre of commerce.

20th century

21th century

1921 - 1991

1991 - ...

USSR

Sovereign Ukraine

Beginning of XX cent. Shutdown of industries, unemployment, foreign capital outflow. Social unrest, struggles between socialist, nationalist, monarchist and anarchist political parties.

1946-1980. Systemic crisis of Soviet society.

1921 Establishment Ukrainian Soviet Republic

of the Socialist

The city became one of the largest centers of trade in the Soviet Union. Ethnical heterogeneity dropped down significantly.

In the postwar years, resources were directed towards rebuilding infrastructures such as factories, hospitals, and the port. During the 1960s the city began expanding as residential districts were built at its northern and southern extensions.

1991 Ukrainian parliament adopted The Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine Odessa is one of the main business, economic and cultural centers in the country. In the conditions of state independence the role and importance of the city increases significantly. The city is the main ÂŤsea gateÂť and the largest harbor of Ukraine.

Table. 1. Historical timeline of Odesa 23

CITY URBAN EVOLUTION Steady growth over centuries

19th century 1789 - 1921 Russian Empire

In 1798 the first plan of Odesa was designed following the decree of of the Empress Catherine the Great.

24

20th century

21th century

1921 - 1991

1991 - ...

USSR

Sovereign Ukraine

N

S

1860s - 1870s - constuction of the railway.

In 1950s - 1960s after the Khrushchev’s housing reform the city began expanding towards north and south.

Today the city is continuing to grow. The new development is predominantly scattered and chaotic.

Table. 2. Urban evolution of the city in the period of 19 - 21 century 25

POPULATION DYNAMICS Shrinkage, migration, change in ethnical composition

In the 19th century the population of Odessa was extremely diverse in terms of ethnicity, language and religion. Some journalists called Odessa a modern Babylon at that time. The steady development of the city, the increase of its industrial potential and number of banks, internal and external trade firms, expanded network of educational institutions – this all required a significant number of people trained for such activities. In 1917, Odessa and the whole Northern Black Sea region turned into the largest international fringes of the Russian Empire. Within a relatively short period there was formed a diverse ethnic structure in the context of the unique geopolitical and geographical location of the city.

During the Soviet period the ethnical heterogeneity of the city dropped down significantly. After the February revolution of the 1920s, a part of the population flew south - that part that was gravitating towards the old system and was afraid of losing its domestic and international market ties. In the following years, as a result of the armed conflicts and frequent changes of power, the emigration rates increased further.

Throughout its history, Odessa’s demographic potential and economic status have changed significantly. In the post-war period, the city’s population grew steadily during 1950-1985, reaching its maximum in 1966-1970. In the late 1970s, Odessa became a city with a population of over one million people and ranked the fifth populous city in Ukraine.

Starting from 1990 in Odessa, as well as in all the cities of Ukraine, the process of shrinkage and depopulation began. Since then, the mortality rate of the population has been constantly exceeding the birth rate, and this gap is gradually increasing. In the context of a long socio-economic crisis, emigration has increased dramatically. Every year up to 14-15 thousand people emigrate abroad from Odessa.

In last decades the aging process accelerates the decline in fertility, which is already low and increases mortality, increases the pressure on the workingage population, ending with the growing need for social protection of the retirees.

26

Fig. 5. Population of Odesa by district

1 1 013 159 18 %

people Poskot 180000

2 3%

Total population of

1

Odesa (2019) 3 12 %

Luzanovka, Pereyp, Bolshevik

2

4

28500

8%

5 13 %

Slobodka 51000

10 3

6

City Center 117000

4

4% Kursakil, Zastavi 79000

Moldovanka 78000

9

7 16 %

8 13 %

Cheremushki 126000

5

8

Fontan 126000

6 Tairova 160000

7

Chastnui Fontan 36000

9 8%

10 5%

27

Ethnic composition

19th century 1789 - 1921 Russian Empire Ukrainian 9.4 %

Yiddish

Russian

31 %

49 %

Polish, German, Greek, Tatar, French, Italian 10.6 %

total population of Odesa year

28

403 815

498 100

411 416

1897

1912

1926

20th century

21th century

1921 - 1991

1991 - ...

USSR

Sovereign Ukraine Bulgarian, Moldavian, Gagauz, Belarusian 15.9 %

Yiddish 0.6 % Bulgarian,

Russian

Moldavian,

27.4 %

Russian 20.7 %

Belarusians, Gagauz

Ukrainian 54.6 %

15,4 %

Ukrainian 62.8 %

Yiddish 2.6 %

601 651

891 546

1 115 371

1 029 049

1 013 159

1939

1970

1989

2001

2019

Table. 3. Ethnic composition of population in Odesa in the period of 19 - 21 century 29

SOCIALIST MASS HOUSING IN USSR

Fig. 6. Cover. First Secretary of the Communist Party Nikita Khrushchev inspecting architectural projects, 1962

ARCHITECTURE AND IDEOLOGY IN USSR Role of the socialist central state in the housing construction

In December of 1921, Bolshevik party took power in Ukraine. From 1921 to 1991 Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was ruled by a communist party.

Marxist–Leninist ideology promoted stateless and classless communist society and aimed to overturn the unchanging hierarchical social order of Tsarist Russia and redesign society along collective lines.

According to soviet dictionary definition, the ideology is “a system of views and ideas that acknowledge and evaluate people’s attitudes to reality and to each other, social problems and conflicts, and that contain programs of social activities aimed at strengthening or changing these social relations”.

Though, in Soviet Union the state ideology did not compete with the ideologies of any other groups. Every decision was pursued with the consistency and perseverance that is possible only in a hyper-centralized system that conforms to the norms of a single party. (Ikonnikov, 2002) Beginning of the 20th century was a period of revolutions: The Russian Revolution run by the Bolsheviks, the Ukrainian National Democratic Revolution on the territory of Ukraine. They began under the motto of egalitarian, communist and radical social-democratic ideas. These sociopolitical movement coincided with the growth of the rationalist movement in arts in the avant-garde of the time. The modern paradigm – and its reductive rationalism, determinism and brutal materialism became a core of the Soviet arts and architecture. Soviet modernism absorbed the ideas of L. Sullivan evolutionary theory - «form determines function». Its positivist and materialist interpretations became the basis for utilitarian concepts of architecture, in which aesthetic value derived from «utility»: the meaning of form is limited to practical orientation in specific circumstances. For the soviet architects the simplicity was essential. For instance in the early 20th century, in the period of socialist historicism, the classic techniques were interpreted using combinations of elementary geometric shapes. In the post-war architecture of the 50s, the craving for simplicity was brought to an absolute level both in Europe («Less is more», Mies van der Rohe) and in

33

Soviet Union. The apotheosis was the invasion of «five-storey» Khrushchev time housing estates across all the Soviet Union.

In USSR architecture and urban planning decisions depended entirely on the national policies which were carried out centrally throughout the country.

If the party leaders changed the political course - the construction industry was restructured: new technologies and materials were implemented in a very short period of time. The shape of the city was determined by the ideological framework and served to confirm the given ideas and to stabilize a social order. (Ikonnikov, 2002) Stalinist Empire monumentalism In the beginning of 1930s, when Stalin gained the power, the main goal was to turn the country into a world power, so new buildings were needed in order to show the glory of the Soviet Union and support the propagandistic image of prosperity. Classical elements such as columns and arches were used for the new construction, wide and straight avenues were built for military parades. (Fig. 7) Stalinist architecture reached its peak with the construction of massive high-rise buildings, a «monumental structure outstanding in its architectural formulation» (May 1940 issue of ‘The Architecture’, USSR). Architecture of this period belongs to Stalinist Empire style. The era of Stalinist architecture was completed in November 1955, when Nikita Khrushchev released a decree ‘On liquidation of excesses in design and construction’. This milestone marked the beginning of the most radical standardization of the living environment (Fig. 8), transforming Soviet architecture and urban planning into the highly technocratic practice (Martin, 2002).

Fig. 7. Kyiv, Khreshchatyk, example of Stalinist Empire style architecture

Khrushchev’s Manifesto On December 1954 Khrushchev proclaimed a speech at the All-Union Conference of Builders, Architects and Workers. This speech marks a general policy change in the Soviet Union. This speech stands as “one of the most important manifestos of modern architecture” (Martin, 2002) as it had a great influence on architecture of its time. In the following decades, it has been extremely instrumental in fundamentaly changing the

34

Fig. 8. Kyiv, suburbs, example of Khrushchev architecture

Soviet building industry in general and Soviet architecture in particular.

The key of the speech lies in the third part - «Increasing the productivity of labour, creating supply of qualified workers». Khrushchev claims that it s absolutely necessary to enhance the productivity of the construction workers, likewise absolutely necessary is the means by which to achieve this: industrialisation of the constriction-material industry.

[...] It’s well known that there is much room in the construction sector for improving productivity of labour and consequently for increasing salaries earned by workers. Such room is to be found in mechanisation of building work; a switch to industrial methods of construction; improvement of workers’ skills. [...] (4) Khrushchev attacks Stalinist architecture, blaming it for superfluity and high costs imposed on the state. “We are not against beauty, but against useless things.” – Khrushchev says. He claims that the housing construction industrialization will solve the housing crisis:

A common feature of construction in this country is wastage of resources, and for this a large part of the blame rests with the many architects who use architectural superfluities to decorate buildings built to one-off designs. […] In order to build quickly and successfully, we must use standard designs in our buildings. […] If an architect wants to be in step with life, he must know and be able to employ not only architectural forms, ornaments, and various decorative elements, but also new progressive materials, reinforced-concrete structures and parts, and, above all must be an expert in cost-saving in construction. (5) The standardization is a key – the goal is to have as few building types as possible that must be produced is a mass way out of standardized parts.

During the speech Khrushchev states:

[...] We must select a small number of standard designs for residential buildings, schools, hospitals, kindergartens, children’s

36

(4, 5, 6) Excerpts from a speech

by Nikita Khrushchev at the national Conference of Builders, Architects, Workers on December 7, 1954

nurseries, shops, and other buildings and structures and conduct our mass building programmes using only these designs over the course of, say, five years. At the end of which period we shall hold a discussion and, if no better designs turn up, continue in the same fashion for the next five years. What’s wrong in this approach, comrades? (6) Khrushchev’s reform was based on the commitment to provide the entire Soviet population with individual apartments (with a kitchen, toilet/bath, centralized heating, water supply, sewage). This nation-wide program required that architects simplify the architectural and planning solutions of new houses and ensure the lowest cost of individual apartments in new houses. The tenfold increase in the total area of urban housing from 1954 to 1974 required the creation of a completely new construction industry based on standard panel housing construction through production of standardized elements and their subsequent assembly. Khrushchev made the transition from elitist architecture to mass architecture, from the so-called «Stalinist Empire style» to modern architecture. As a result of standardization, the number of housing typologies has decreased dramatically. The communal dwelling has been replaced with individual dwelling, financing of housing construction have increased. All existing design and construction organizations have been reformed and have been subordinated to the Committee on affairs of building at Gosstroy of the USSR. The system of state control over architecture and urban planning was strengthened. The standardized housing units acquired the name “Khrushchevka”. Khrushchevkas were composed into a bigger spatial unit called “mikrorayon”, mikrorayons formed the cities, and the cities were part of the Territorial Productive Complexes (TPCs). From the individual apartment to the urban scale – everything worked within a giant algorithm.

The destruction of cities after the Second World War gave the Soviet leadership an opportunity to radically reshape the old planning structures of settlements, which could not be done in previous years because of the huge housing deficit. These rearrangements of the cities were based on the Soviet settlement doctrine, according to which the growth of the population of the cities was determined by the expansion of new industrial production,

37

and the increase in the number of proletarian population was the main sign of «development» of the territories. (Meerovich, 2016) The mass housing buildings aesthetic has to reflect its ideological determinants. The tessellation of the façade created by the use of large concrete panels is deliberately augmented to signify the new, progressive attitude towards construction. The “honest delineation of the parts and wall sections” or the “honesty gap” demanded by Khrushchev transformed in a highly persistent stylistic device that was implemented in all the mass housing of that period, and that is still going strong today.

The 50s theorists claimed that the style of the housing units was coherent in the time because of its’ simplicity, rationality and lack of any superfluous embellishment. The spatial layout of the apartments were designed with an effort to create the smallest possible functional apartments where even the furniture placement was prescribed.

Today, after the economic and political defeat of socialism, the monotony of mass-built housing irritates people in former Soviet Socialist republics.

The aesthetic merits of panel architecture are often called into doubt.

The general view is that in case of prefabricated buildings the question of aesthetic quality just does not arise.

Mass housing in Ukrainian SSR In the USSR, the highest executive and administrative body of state power was the Council of Ministers of the USSR (or the Government of the USSR). In the Soviet Union and autonomous republics within the USSR, the respective Councils of Ministers were the highest executive and administrative bodies of state power. Ministries of the USSR, the Union and Autonomous Republics, within the limits of their powers, were in charge of certain branches of state administration. The executive committees of krays, oblasts, autonomous regions, districts, cities and villages, within the limits of their competence, administered cultural, political and economic construction on the basis of decisions of their higher bodies.

Public administration bodies in their activities were accountable to and under the control of government bodies - the councils of deputies of workers. In addition, based on the principles of democratic centralism, the bodies of

38

state administration were directly subordinated to the higher bodies of state administration. The practice of delegating some state functions to public organizations (trade unions) was widely used. (Melehin, 2009) The production of mass housing in the Soviet Union was a construction job for the government. Official Design Institutes planned the series of buildings and the State building concerns constructed them. Three stakeholders initially emerged in mass housing: the first was the construction of housing by the State; the second, housing cooperatives (an alliance of State administrations and institutions) and the third, individual mass housing (State enterprises which constructed houses for their workers). In the first half of the seventies, a fourth stakeholder began to build apartments for its workers and their relatives. The respective shares of the total volume of new buildings differed widely. Between the years 1961 and 1975 its share of total construction activity increased from fifty-one per cent to sixty-eight per cent. Therefore an examination of the role of State Design Institutes and State building concerns is crucial for developing a basic understanding of the planning and construction sector in the Soviet Union. In various Design Institutes - which assisted with planning tasks in individual cities architects, city planners, engineersand house technicians worked under one roof. The Design Institute assumed responsibility for the entire planning.

(Meuser, Zadorin, 2015) In Ukraine reforms in the construction industry were carried out and controlled at the national level by Kyiv design institutions. These institutions were developing most part of new residential areas across all the Ukrainian cities. Construction organizations in Kyiv (in particular, ÂŤGlavkievstroyÂť) were developing methods of industrial manufacturing of panel buildings elements and technologies of fast assembling. (Boychenko, 1961)

39

POST-WAR URBAN PLANNING IN ODESA Beginning of the extensive mass housing construction

The post-war housing crisis in Odessa was typical for all cities of the USSR. The industrial forces grew constantly: during 1959-1965, 17 new industrial plants were built in Odesa. Meanwhile, the new residential areas were built extremely slowly. As a result, thousands of workers lived in temporary barracks and overcrowded communal apartments.

This intensive construction of industrial enterprises and settlements on the periphery of the urban area led to an increase in the area of the city and significantly influenced its structural organization. Transport connections became considerably more complicated, the problems of amenities were more difficult to solve and engineering communications were extended.

Therefore, already in the early 1950s, the main emphasis was shifted to the construction of multi-storey residential complexes.

Over the next two decades, the area of the city increased by tens of square kilometers. In 1957, the city began to be built up with standard large panel housing. In 1960, the production of wall and floor panels was introduced in Odesa plants.

Series of mass housing In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the most popular types of new housing constructed in Odesa were 4-5-storey houses of 1-438 standard series made of reinforced concrete blocks and local materials, 1-464 series and 1-464A series made of large panels. Later on, a standard series 1-480A was also used. In the 1960s, architects proposed to diversify the silhouette of the new areas with taller buildings. In the South-West district, three singlesection 9-storey houses were built on General Petrov Str. New masterplan The new masterplan of Odesa was developed by the Hyprograd of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Kyiv) under the leadership of D. M. Batalov in 1947. This master plan was not approved, but was adopted ÂŤas

40

a basis for further growth». It was planned to locate industrial enterprises mainly along the railway tracks, and besides, for the first time it was planned to develop the city in the south-western direction creating residential area «Cheremushki» - area with 2-3-4 storey «Stalinist» houses. With the construction of new industrial plants, the situation has changed significantly, and the masterplan developed by Batalov required further modification.

In this regard, it was decided to create a special planning department at the Oblproject (later Odessa branch of Giprograd). (Timofeenko, 1983) Khrushchev’s reform changed radically the theoretical ideas about the city and the new housing policies. The city ceased to be a system of central and secondary streets, which clearly demonstrated the Soviet stratification of society. Housing of the party-soviet, cultural and scientific-technical elite ceased to be reflected in architectural and planning techniques. The city started to be interpreted as a comfortable space for the whole population ordinary workers, employees, and the city intellectuals. (Meerovich, 2018) In Odesa, the first standard series of residential buildings appeared in the central part of the city, in those areas where one- and two-storey old houses were demolished. New buildings were included in the existing urban structure, such as the ones on Novikov Street, Balkovskaya Street, at the beginning of Yaroslavskogo Street, on the corner of Pushkinskaya Street and Chicherin Street, a house on Deribasovskaya Street, etc.

Cheremushki In 1958, a development of the south-western vacant lands started by Odesa branch of Giprograd. Detailed planning of the first stage of construction was completed by 1960. Part of the future residential area was located on the area of 250 hectares. Its total living area was 240,000 square meters, with the population 26,000 people. This housing estate was divided into five micro-districts with an area of 14 to 34 hectares. All residential buildings (mainly four-, five-storey) were with small apartments designed to accommodate one family. Micro-districts were connected with the center of the residential area by a green boulevard.

The South-West residential district was divided by the main streets into 16 districts, each with the area from 14 to 35 hectares. Each micro-district

41

fully corresponded to the concept of a stepped service system, providing for the placement of service facilities of three «levels» designed to meet the basic needs of residents. The first level included grocery and industrial convenience stores, the second level - the facility of episodic demand (hairdresser’s, household appliances, laundry, post office, savings bank, etc.), the third level - the facility of targeted demand (department stores, department stores, specialized stores, etc.).

Inside the micro-district - i.e. within the main streets, on separate sites adjacent to the general gardens of micro-districts, isolated from the resting places of adults and household buildings, there were all the normatively necessary educational institutions: schools for 920 students each, kindergartens and nurseries (Sharapenko, 1964) (during the period under consideration, kindergartens and nurseries were united in one building with a capacity of 1110 seats). This arrangement allowed parents with young children, as well as children going to school on their own (without accompanying adults), not to cross the main streets filled with traffic. In the public center of the whole residential area there were built a cinema and large commercial institutions, a polyclinic, a maternity hospital, a hotel, designed to serve all 125 thousand residents of the area. Also, some part of the area of green spaces, normatively prescribed for the residential area, was grouped into a park of general district importance, which was located in the central part of the district as its planning core. It housed a cultural centre, a summer cinema, a stadium and a number of other recreational and sports facilities. In Cheremushki, a significant number of hotel-type buildings were erected for small families and hostels for working youth.

In the late 1960s, changes occurred in housing construction. The standards for insolation, aeration and ventilation of internal territories were revised, thus reducing the distances between houses. Building blocks started to have different lengths and curvilinear plan. And important buildings in terms of urban planning were designed according to individual projects.

The Kotovsky district is an example of the large-scale implementation of new standard projects. Here, in addition to free-standing 9-storey houses, section blocks are used, and 16-storey houses are constructed.

42

Fig. 9. Snapshots from the Soviet slapstick comedy film «Operation Y and Shurik’s Other Adventures», 1965 (Odesa, period of intensive mass housing construction)

Series 1-437-6, Kosmonavtov str., 29/ 3

Series 1-437-6, Kosmonavtov str., 31/ 3

Series 1-480, Frantsuzskiy boulevard, 22

Series 1-438-9, Varnenskaya str., 19/4

43

PRESENT AND FUTURE OF PANEL HOUSING IN FORMER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES

PERSPECTIVES FOR MASS SOCIALIST HOUSING Mass socialist housing in diverse socio-economic conditions: The cases of Russia, Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Ukraine

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the factors determining the housing policy of the former Eastern Bloc countries changed radically. The process of political, economic and social changes started, which also led to changes in the understanding of urban space. Complex transformation processes are taking place in the field of urban planning, the municipal economy, housing construction, they affect the basic living conditions of the population of these countries. Mass panel housing became an important issue on the political agenda of each country as there are millions of people curretnly living there and it is a huge resource for the city development. For example in Germany, post-war modernist buildings account for more than a third of the total housing stock and thus largely determine the character of urban space. In the major cities of the former Eastern Bloc countries, they also play an important role in urban planning and housing for a large part of the population. (Engel, 2019) Although, already at the moment of collapse of USSR socialist housing estates were undergoing a process of physical and moral ageing and required a set of measures to be undertaken in order to be adopted to rapidly changing socio-economic and political context. Today microrayons of generic panel housing are in urgent need of rethinking and adoption of new approaches. Once they were an innovative housing project, but today they have become a source of problems for city and its’ population. Thus, a number of questions arise: Does the mass housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s have a future in Ukraine? Is it possible to consider the socialist districts to be the cultural heritage? Does it exist in the city as a social space with which residents have established an emotional connection? Are the areas of mass housing in Odessa impersonal and generic, or do they have value, meanings and relationships with the city?

The first chapter give an overview of the current conditions of panel housing in Germany, Russia (particularly Moscow), Czechoslovakia and

47

Ukraine. The experience of these countries reflect different implications in mass housing of political and social discourse along with the current level of economic development.

During the communist period, the approaches to housing construction differed slightly from one communist country to another. However, since the 1990s, generic mass housing has found itself in completely different conditions. Thus, the lifecycle of panel housing took diverse paths in different countries. The questions about whether these buildings and even entire residential areas should be preserved or demolished have raisen shortly after the collapse of Soviet Union.

The demolition of standard housing has been particularly active in Moscow since the late 1990s. During the last decade soviet mass housing was completely demolished in the city, and over 1,5 millions of tenants were relocated in new houses constructed by the state. This was only possible due to specific political context, central position of the city in the country’s economic arena, and extremely high prices in the housing market.

In many other cities, the appropriateness of preserving and reconstructing such buildings has been questioned due to their poor condition, insufficient thermal insulation, poor noise insulation, low levels of comfort and even threats to health, e.g. due to mold fungus damage to structures. Standard houses have serious design defects, are outdated structure, poorly designed organization of adjacent areas, transport system of neighbourhoods also does not meet modern standards, etc. Many buildings constructed on the territory of the former USSR and Eastern Bloc countries need urgent repair. Furthermore, mass housing, due to its aesthetic attributes, is often being stigmatized among politicians, mass media, and the broad public and in expert discussions. The socialist housing estates are predominantly discussed in relation to the problems that exist there. The discussion does not take into account meanings embedded in the socialist estates, and its’ values are not being identified.

The value of socialist urban development cannot be measured only within the framework of the history of architecture and construction technologies.

Micro-districts of panel building should also be considered as a reflection of a certain social order, and as an essential part of the heritage of an entire

48

epoch. The very fact of the existence of socialist buildings is not a valid reason for their preservation, but a detailed study of their features and identity is required.

The case of Germany shows that if some agreements develop among the different actors, post-war housing can be successfully adapted to the expectations of new owners. Most of the housing stock of the former GDR has already been modernized, this applies both to facades and interior design. Many buildings have been rebuilt in order to meet new requirements in terms of functionality, energy saving and safety, and today they are completely unrecognizable. Others, however, are gradually being destroyed and demolished. Thus there were many renovation strategies developed during the post-Soviet period, including design and financing.

In Ukrainian and Russian cities, most of the housing was privatized after the collapse of the USSR. As ownership structure have changed dramatically, new actors emerged, and development became fully dependent on the free market forces, which are often driven by short-term and exclusively financial interests.

In Ukraine, after the adoption of the law of «On Privatization of the State Housing Fund» in 1992, the government pledged to carry out a complex renovation of mass housing estates, though this has never happened. Nowadays there are multiple issues related to mass housing. Once new residential areas became outdated; the demands of citizens for their living environment have changed. These new demands are reflected in the transformations that have taken place in Khrushevkas in recent decades: for example, numerous extensions and « Tsar-balconies» informally added became an integral attribute of Khrushevkas. There is no vision for the future development of these areas and no strategy for coherent and long-term development.

There is still a high demand for housing in Ukraine due to the scarcity of living space per capita. New housing development in the cities is often determined solely by the vision and interests of private developers, and not being properly controlled by the state. As a result, the middle-price segment of new residential development is often characterized by low quality of building construction as well as poor quality and lack of infrastructure.

In the absence of alternatives, mass housing of the Soviet period is now remaining popular for renting and even buying among citizens.

49

Moscow, Russia The «Renovation» [demolition] of Khrushchevki

The considerable part of housing stock in Moscow was constructed in the period of 1950’ – 1960’. 0.8 million square meters of housing were built in 1949, 1.8 million square meters in 1959. In 1963-1964, at the peak of Khrushchev construction, 2.5 million square meters have been commissioned. (Mos.ru – Official portal of Moscow Municipality) The first and canonical khrushchevka in USSR - The Ninth Quarter of Novie Cheremushki district in the south-west of Moscow - was built in Moscow following the nationwide contest for best projects on cost-effective apartment house types. This project became the prototype for all the residential blocks built in the Soviet Union in coming decades, and the new neighbourhoods – Cheremushki - were named after it. The complex program of renovation of post-war housing was never held in Russia, though there is an ongoing discussion about the Soviet legacy its’ unique status. (Snopek, 2018) In February 2017, the mayor of Moscow announced a large-scale project that was officially named a “renovation program”, but in fact it was a project of demolition of the most part of post-was Khruschev period housing. In became the most extensive Russian resettlement project in half a century - a full 10% of Moscow’s housing got torn down and 1.6 million people moved as the city’s ‘Khrushchevka’ flats are destroyed. (The Guardian, Moscow’s big move: is this the biggest urban demolition project ever?) The program had numerous implications for the rights of residents and smallbusiness owners and was largely driven by politics and profits. For instance, the legislation allowed the government to tear down not just Soviet prefabricated blocks, but also nearby “analogous” buildings. The opinions of the tenants whose houses became a subject to renovation were divided in half: some wanted to move into a new building, while others prefered to stay in their old apartments. The tenants who did not want to move away were often sued by the municipality, and after the couth they were forcibly evicted. The large-scale protests against the demolition of khrushevka were held across the city. One of the main reasons were the restrictions

50

Fig. 10. Demolition of khrushchevka in Moscow

of the constitutional rights of citizens, as well as risks associated with the uncertainty regarding the location of the new house and the quality of the building construction. After the announcement of the renovation program, the demand for housing in such houses increased by 25 percent. Investors rent out the property prior to the demolition of the building, and after receiving a new apartment, they expect to sell it at the higher rate.

Alongside mass demolition, there were individual projects of khrushchevki renovation and reconstruction based on private initiative and investments.

Apartment buildings were not only overhauled, including improvement of water and electrical supply systems, energy efficiency, and soundproofing, but often increased by two or three floors. Investors made their profit from the sales of new apartments located at the overbuilt floors (Pogorelsky 2017).

It needs to be noted that the mass demolition and private investments in the housing renovation programs were only possible because the city is the major economi center of the country, and there is an issue of land shortage as well as extremely high prices in the housing market.

51

Germany Renovation and rethinking of Plattenbauten

The panel building mikrorayons developed between the 1950s and the 1980s are an important part of the German housing stock. In the large cities of East Germany they constitute more than half of the total housing stock. As for today, most part of large panel-built residential complexes were reconstructed. Currently in some cities the socialist neighbourhoods are facing the issue of gentrification and rise of property prices.

The reconstruction of mass panel housing in Germany began shortly after the reunification of the two German states in 1990. Thousands of residents of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) migrated to the western part of Germany, in search of employment and economic prosperity. In order to stop this large-scale emigration, politicians promised a fast process of convergence in standards of living between eastern and western parts of the country. In some cities in Germany, the renovation of large panel-built residential complexes has already been completed, in others it is still ongoing, but some areas are still waiting to be renovated.

In the course of the renovation, residential buildings are being renovated and social infrastructure is upgraded - from kindergartens and schools to medical centres. In the same time affordable rent is still being maintained.

Renovation of housing in Germany is rather the rule and the cases of demolition are an exception. Renovation is generally cheaper than demolition and new construction, and people can continue living in a familiar environment. If all the works are carried out carefully, they can be done without expensive temporary relocation of residents. (Engel, 2018) Financing such projects is an important aspect of the whole process.

Participation of the private sector in housing construction is only profitable in the high price segment of the real estate market. For rent to remain affordable for the general public, government involvement is needed.

Numerous subsidies were introduced to stimulate refurbishment of the existing housing stock.

One form of subsidies is providing lower-rate loans. In this case, cheap

52

Fig. 11. Oleanderweg, Halle-Neustadt, Germany

loans with low interest rates are issued for renovation (e.g. one billion euros for the [Wohnraumfdrderung] program). Another form of public support is direct irrevocable subsidies and grants, which enable projects that benefit the general public. (Stadtebauforderung program, which aims to improve the quality of the living environment). The third form of material support is a scheme under which the state offers the investor a land plot at a lower price than the market one. In exchange for financing, the investors are obliged not to exceed a certain level of rent. The residential areas that have been transformed with state financial support have the advantage of being more accessible than those that have been modernized with exclusively private financing. (Ibid.)

The experience of Germany shows that large residential complexes of the twentieth century have future. They have the potential to provide living space for large groups of people. However, renewal and development is only possible with a support of the entire urban community.

53

Czech Republic Rainbow paneláks

Thirty years after the end of Communism in Czechoslovakia, more than 30% of the inhabitants of the Czech Republic still live in prefabricated panel buildings. Paneláks or the prefabricated concrete apartment buildings can be found in every city and town in the region.

After the demise of Soviet Union, the slum conditions are beginning to emerge in paneláks areas where building maintenance and stable employment have been long-term problems. Even so, many postwar neighbourhoods are popular middle-class options in the Czech Republic, especially in Prague and Brno where housing prices are high. (Sýkora, 2009) With the economic boom that followed the country’s entry into the European

54

Union in 2004, large state-funded projects were launched to renovate the socialist mass housing. The main transformation were installation of new vinyl windows and wrapping the buildings in sheets of rigid polystyrene foam in order to improve the thermal qualities of the buildings, and, at the same time, to literally paint rainbows across a previously gray skyline.

(Zarecor, 2008) The initiative to apply colour to panelák façades came from the tenants of the houses. The symbolic importance of colour increases in this situation as the actors’ capacity to act is limited or perceived as such.

Painting (on) a wall is the most immediate act of appropriation when actors lack power, means or knowledge to act tectonically. For post-socialist residents of paneláks, who often lack resources to move out, it serves as a means of appropriating their increasingly stigmatized homes.

The legacy of socialist-era housing such as the alienating open spaces, the lack of maintenance, the grey facades, the poor quality of construction— appear as opportunities for improvement in a case like Hranice in Karviná where, despite lifestyle complaints, many residents are satisfied with their housing.

Currently many of the socialist buildings were renovated, while other neighbourhoods were showing signs of distress and lack of investment.

Kimberly Elman Zarecor proposes that as time passes the apartment blocks’ architectural style has become less important to their future livability than the social and spatial ideas that were part of the original designs. These included plans for walkable neighbourhoods with parks, schools, shopping, community spaces, and public transportation, although in many cases the projects remained incomplete or poorly executed. Surprising to many, these architectural and urban planning strategies, as well as many prefabricated buildings themselves, have proven adaptable to the new political and social context of capitalism. Government subsidies and grant programs have paid for the rehabilitation of individual buildings and many neighbourhoods have remained stable.

Fig. 12. Drkolnov housing estate, Pribram, Czech Republic

55

Ukraine Policies, change of ownership structure, absence of complex renovation measures

After the collapse of the USSR and the achievement of independence in Ukraine, private property was declared the basis for building a market economy. Privatization of housing affected almost the entire population of cities.

In June 1992, the Law of Ukraine ÂŤOn Privatization of the State Housing FundÂť was adopted, which defined that privatization had to be carried out by means of free transfer of housing to residents (tenants). In fact, privatization began even before the collapse of the USSR, but the adoption of a legal framework accelerated it. The object of privatization was the state housing fund - the housing fund of local councils and the housing fund administered or managed by state enterprises, organizations and institutions. The state

56

pledged to support the privatized housing stock through the Procedure for Participating in the Organization and Financing of the Repair of Privatized Residential Buildings of Their Former Owners (Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 572 of October 8, 1992): the state had to finance the first post-privatization complex repair of a building, but this have never happened.

Commodification and increased inequalities This transfer of wealth allowed for some «shock absorption» of the market transformation society (Bodnar, 2001; Struyk, 1996), but reduced the stateowned housing stock and led to the commodification of housing. Currently Ukraine’s housing stock is 93.7% privately-owned, 4.9% municipallyowned and 1.4% state-owned. The state lost the ability to directly manage housing policy through public housing stock.

The consequences of privatization initially seem to have reduced inequality: housing ownership was transferred more evenly than other privatized assets, such as factories or plants. However, privatization also reinforced inequalities: those who had the best apartments benefited from the transfer of large wealth, while those who had mediocre housing or did not have it at the time of privatization lost.

For those who did not have a house at the moment of privatization, the absence of a public rental sector meant that they had to rely on either private rentals or the purchase of property. The private rental sector was not very developed. As the number of households that did not benefit from privatization continued to grow - especially among the youth mobile populations and the poor - the lack of affordable housing provided by the formal rental market forced many groups to rent housing in the informal sector with little guarantee (World Bank, 2005).

The research on social security and the «worlds» that Esping-Andersen once defined make it possible to highlight the special «post-socialist world of social welfare». Its main features are the experience of the socialist regime, low wages and low levels of welfare provision (Aidukaite 2010: 20). On the one hand, the provision of social welfare by the State «is still quite large in scope and structure, but weak in the results of ensuring a decent standard of

Fig. 13. Drkolnov housing estate, Pribram, Czech Republic

57

living for its citizensÂť (ibid., 21). Where the role of the State has diminished and the market has not yet entered into force, the role of the family and intergenerational social security has increased. For example, inheritance of previously privatized housing has become an important factor in solving housing problems (Zavisca, 2012).

Ownership structure As of 2018, an almost absolute majority of households in Ukraine (94%) live in individual apartments (47%, mostly in cities) or individual houses (48%, mostly in rural areas) - and these figures remain unchanged throughout the period 1999-2018.

According to official data, as much as 94.7% of households live in dwellings they own (homes acquired either through free privatization or purchase on the free market). Households living in public or departmental housing account for 1.7% and 0.2%, respectively, while 3.4% of households live in private-rental housing. (SSSU, Social and Demographic Characteristics of Households in Ukraine in 2013 (Kyiv, 2013). The low share of rental housing in Ukraine does not give the real picture of the housing rental market in Ukraine as the process is often done informally and outside the official tax system. According to some estimates (e.g. Expert RA cited in R&B Group website, 2012), the housing rental market accounts for almost 13% of the total residential stock. According to the official sources of the Ministry of Regional Development, 70% of housing is rented out in the shadow market. According to unofficial data, this figure reaches 90%.

Khrushevkas: current conditions The housing stock in Ukraine is relatively old. Only 7% of residential housing stock has been built since 1991; of the remainder, 42% was built before 1960 and therefore requires both major and routine repairs. This includes Soviet-era multifamily houses - khrushevkas, which experience decades of widespread mismanagement and disrepair. Most of the housing stock in apartment blocks was built from 1960 to 1980. Close to 20% of multi-unit housing was built before 1960 and only about 10% was built from 1990; therefore, a typical multi-unit building is 30 to 50 years old.

58

The most serious problem affecting the quality of housing in apartment blocks is bad maintenance. The condition of buildings throughout Ukraine is poor and getting worse due to the slow pace of capital repairs. According to 2012 statistical data, only 0.1% of the housing stock underwent capital repairs, which were restricted to urgent repairs and did not result in a substantial increase in housing quality and energy efficiency. There is also a growing need to save energy and water resources in the residential sector.

About 51.1% of the total housing stock has never had capital repairs of heating and water-supplying systems.

Housing management: zheks and housing cooperatives During the Soviet period, the maintenance of multi-unit apartment buildings was carried out by departments in the national Government called zheks. During the transition period, this responsibility was transferred to local governments. The municipal enterprises’ services are characterized by poor quality and the monopolistic structure of the sector discourages efficient service provision. The zheks normally take a minor part in restoring the necessary infrastructure in buildings. As a rule, it is only cleaning of the territory around the house, not always of a good quality. In recent years, the responsibilities of zheks are partially carried by the city deputies, who, during their mandates or in the eve of elections may repair entrances, change elevators and windows in old buildings.

The national housing policy aims to encourage owner associations in multiunit apartment buildings (housing cooperative) to become real holders of the building, acting as a customer for professional competitive management and maintenance services. As of 1 January 2013, 15,731 HOAs in 18,089 multi-unit apartment buildings were set up in Ukraine. In 2012 alone, 1,529 such associations were founded. Municipal management companies maintain over 66% of the housing stock. Thus, the maintenance of most multi-unit apartment housing is still overseen by municipal management companies. In the absence of a competitive market for housing management services or a satisfactory municipal company, established condominium associations tend to employ maintenance and repair workers directly. As a result, the differences between condominium associations and former zheks, both in terms of structural organizations and performance, are

59

not so evident and the majority of condominium associations appear to lack professional skills and efficiency. Other risks include late payment of maintenance costs by some residents, which leads to delays in staff salaries payment, loss of qualified staff and unregular maintenance of the house’s utilities.

Condominiums have already been established in 16.4% of apartment buildings, with a total of over 28.5 thousand such associations in Ukraine.

«Renovation» attempts In the process of developing urban planning legislation, regular attempts are made in order to provide a framework for the renovation of old housing stock, but funding mechanisms always remain unclear.

«About 1.5 thousand hectares of the territory is occupied by the so-called «Khrushchevkas». These buildings have run out of their capacity. The method of resettlement is very simple: either sanitation, reconstruction and insulation of buildings with overbuilding of one or two floors. Or resettlement of residents, demolition of buildings and in their place construction of highrise buildings in the same neighbourhood. Residents of the «Khrushchevka» will be given new apartments with a higher coefficient of square meters» - Sergei Bronevitsky, head of the municipal organization «Kyivgenplan Institute» In December of 2019, the «Kyivgenplan Institute» presented the concept of new masterplan of Kyiv. As well as in the previous masterplans, it is assumes that all renovation works must be carried out at the expense of developers, who must first obtain the consent of all residents of the renovated building.

Then the investor, who is ready to participate in the renovation project, resettles the tenants, demolishes the house, builds a new one - with a bigger number of floors. However, the legislation does not give an indication of where exactly to relocate tenants from demolished houses. The investor first needs to build temporary houses and only then to take on the reconstruction

60

of the main housing stock. In addition, according to the law, people should be resettled within the same administrative district, which makes it difficult for the developer or the municipality.

Another problem is that the developer may be interested to participate in renovating the housing stock only in Kiev and other major Ukrainian cities, where the cost of apartments will eventually cover its costs. But there is no such incentive in smaller towns. As a result, renovation programs will fully depend on regional budgets, which do not allocate sufficient funds.

The situation is hardened by the fact that under the existing legislation it is impossible to demolish Khrushchevka without the consent of 100% of all its residents.

Currently there is only one restored Khrushchevka in Ukraine. It is located in Kyiv and it was a pilot project of the Soviet housing renovation program.

During the reconstruction of the house balconies was added, the roof the facade was restored. However, even this renovation project was not completed.

«Two million wasn’t enough. Either stolen or something else.

They had to change the wiring, the pipes inside» - Svetlana, resident of a renewed khrushevka This case shows the inability of the existing legislation to create conditions for complex reconstruction of residential buildings. Radically new approaches are needed in order to develop new strategies, as well as a clear understanding of the role and responsibilities of the developer, apartment owners or the state.

Currently the Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services has no understanding of how much housing exists in the country, who owns it and how many apartments are remaining empty. At the same time, the idea that the population lacks a «roof over their heads» is being popularized and used to justify the boom of almost uncontrolled housing construction in major cities. Without a full reform of housing policy, the situation with housing in the country is unlikely to change.

61

SPACES OF MASS HOUSING Unused potential and informal practices

On April 12,1961, Yuri Gagarin took his historic trip into the cosmos, becoming the first human to venture beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.

The mass press detailed this Soviet first with articles describing the flight and photographs of a clean-cut, smiling Gagarin. Alongside images of futuristic space travel for the masses were stories of the ongoing mass housing campaign, which buttressed the promises of a technologically modern way of life that Soviet man’s space travel represented. The journal Arkhitektura SSSR (Architecture of the USSR) idealized welldesigned neighbourhoods known as microdistricts (mikroraiony) with their commercial and cultural services as modern satellites orbiting around older urban centers. They were clean and full of movement, with rapid public transport and automobiles providing residents with easy access to the entire city or beyond. Khrushchev’s regime worked assiduously to represent space exploration and mass housing as Soviet successes paving the way to communism. In 1959 Khrushchev foresaw the “communist way of life” as the eventual outcome of not only giving Soviet citizens their own apartments but showing them how to “properly use public goods, live properly, and observe the rules of the socialist community.” The separate apartment would play a critical role in balancing the private and public lives of its citizens that would characterize the future communist society.

(Brumfild, 2012) The new housing of the Khrushchev period would ensure that people “lived in one friendly collective according to the principle that a person is a friend, comrade, and brother to another, and not according to the principle—my house is my castle.” But the newspaper indicated that bringing this about no longer required the asceticism and collective regulation of everyday life of house communes from the past. All that was needed were well-designed apartment complexes with commercial services, gyms, cafeterias, and cafes so that people enjoyed “the maximum in conveniences and comfort.” In this formulation, the communist way of life meant a community whose

62

members got along because the good fences of separate apartments made good neighbours, and everyone enjoyed all the comforts and consumer items of modern urban life. Far from encouraging residents to retreat from public life into their private castles, the separate apartment would engender healthy family relations that expanded outward into harmonious neighbourly relations and a collectively shared desire to properly care for housing as Khrushchev himself had advised.

Thus, the socialist mass housing was deeply rooted in the ideological, cultural and social context of Soviet era. It was built for a certain type of society and a certain «soviet» man, and both private and public spaces of mass housing met certain requirements of the given period.

The microrayon of panel housing has a specific spatial character due to its’ roots in the modernist movement and the period of accelerating industrialization process. In contrast to the historically developed block layout, which clearly distinguishes between private and public spaces, microrayon of the postwar modernism era are formed by separate buildings and large open spaces. Prefabricated generic buildings represent a distinctive architectural form and have their own logic. They are the product of the original concept idea and reflect the discrepancy between theory and reality, as many projects were not fully implemented or were implemented incorrectly. There is a specific paths of transformation that socialist urban environment take. Which is the new form that socialist city took in Odesa? If the socialist mass housing districts are adoptable to expectations of its’ new inhabitants, or do they impose an way of living that does not answer contemporary realities anymore? Can they become viable social places? How much the original spatial structure of microrayon is currently preserved and if it needs to be taken into account in future?

Building structure Residential areas of socialist cities have their own specific character, determined by the technology of industrial construction. Standardized panels and facade elements create a specific context. Different interventions have a serious impact on the appearance and morphology of buildings.

For example, in case of Germany, during the renovation process many

63

reconstructed areas lost their original character as a result of the renovation. your character, at first glance generic buildings can be even hard to recognize.

As a result of the use of new colours and the addition of additional structure to the facade surfaces, the original architectural design has been lost buildings look as if they were recently built. (Engel, 2019) In Ukraine, the process of Khrushchevka modification, in the absence of complex renovation programs, is characterized by an individual approach.

Residents of houses make changes to the structure of buildings, often without approval of local authorities. It is widely practiced to expand the area of apartments by adding a balcony. Sometimes tenants group together and build balconies together on multiple floors. This is due, on the one hand, to the fact that the Khrushchevka floor plans do not meet the current demands of residents and, on the other hand, to the impossibility of improving housing conditions in other ways.

Public spaces Today, urban development in postwar neighbourhoods fully relies on the will of the free market, which is often guided by short-term and exclusively financial interests. After 1990, the Cheremushki district loses its spatial unity and character. A characteristic feature is the new and unforeseen spatial configurations. A significant number of unauthorized buildings, sheds and garages are located between houses, in yards and near the streets.

The unregulated construction of kiosks, shops and supermarkets disrupted the original structure of the urban environment.

There is very few well-designed public spaces in socialist neighbourhoods, they are rather absent. Residential buildings are surrounded either by greenery or informal parking. For example in Cheremushki neighbourhood, Central Gorky Park, which is about 500 x 500 meters, occupies almost one tenth of the area of the district. The park has been privatized, which leads to its further commercialization. In addition to this main park, each of the blocks has its own small park, which does not offer residents any additional functions. In addition to the parks, the common yards make the area very green. But despite the above mentioned positive qualities, the open spaces are the key problem of Cheryomushki.

64

Gorky Park now looks more like a theme park, its territory is more or less privatized and is characterized by a large number of closed spaces. At the same time, other parts of the district face economic and social problems, resulting in high rates of environmental pollution and crime. Nevertheless, the Cheremushki district has great potential. Spacious green spaces can be used in different ways and more efficiently if properly organized. However, so far, non-targeted and unregulated use of areas for private purposes can be observed throughout the area, resulting in a reduction in public space and destroying the original concept of fluid spaces. Another factor is the lack of understanding of the importance of a clearly defined property right. Not enough attention has been paid to the problem of zoning, to the formation and structuring of housing cooperatives and to the need for legal restrictions.

The lack of clear organization and tolerance for individual interpretations of norms and rules lead to subjective and speculative decisions.

Apart from school yards and several playgrounds, most of the green spaces do not have a certain function and have no clear boundaries, their potential is not being realized. They are often used as a parking area or as a marketplace for illegal trade. At the moment the courtyard is open for cars, allowing drivers to move in any direction and park in any place.

Private garages are located throughout the territory, their construction is not controlled in any way. The same situation occurs with parking in front of shops and other public services. The open planning that characterizes modernist architecture is definitely an important component of housing estates. However, vague and not structured open spaces make orienting difficult and lead to a lack of functional zones. At the same time, the lack of legislative clarity prevents residents from officially adapting these areas to their own needs.

There is a lack of private open spaces such as terraces and gardens. Areas with standard development were created in the years when a much smaller number of residents had their own car. As a consequence, many outdoor areas are used as unauthorized parking spaces, which greatly reduces the quality of housing in terms of silence and security.

Khrushchevka’s residents try to create a zoning inside the neighbourhoods by their own - for example, they block the entrance to courtyards for cars;

65

fence off the territory of the first-floor spaces in front of windows, allocate improvised parking spaces. People seek to plant their own gardens, so they occupy adjacent areas and use them as additional private space. Multiple illegal parking spaces are created, including the new structures within the public space of the courtyards, as well as extentions of the building structure. Such changes often lead to even more chaotic space arrangement and loss of significant part of accessible public spaces original spatial layout.

Despite the existing problems, khrushevki have the potential to be adapted to the new tenants’ practices. The presence of a large number of green spaces and even a minimum amount of functional zoning create opportunities for mass housing public spaces to become vital social spaces.

In Odesa the layouts of public spaces in mass socialist districts often stand out as compared to new residential complexes being built in the city. Often new courtyards are turned into parking already at the construction stage, which attracts car owners, but later leads to complete oppression of social life in the neighbourhood.

Atlas of mass socialist housing

Fig. 14. Typical khrushchevka’s courtyard, Odesa

Next part of the chapter gives an overview of spatial configuration of mass socialist housing estates in Odesa. The first part contains the building series by generations, according to period of construction, and explains their main features. The second part is dedicated to newly emerged forms of vernacular architecture, or «architecture without architects», practiced individually by khrushevka’s residents. Together, these materials provide a visual library, or atlas, of mass socialist housing and the transformations that have occurred with it over the past decades.

66

Fig. 15. Typical courtyard in the new housing compounds, Odesa

67

Atlas of mass socialist housing in Odesa Series, typologies, generations

Generations unite buildings constructed on the basis of a group of standard projects, which, within the generation, may differ in terms of floor space, number of sections, orientation and minor details of architectural finishing.

As a rule, generations of residential buildings has a limited number of apartment layouts, general architectural style and construction technology.

The development of a series of residential buildings in the Soviet Union was a tool of industrialization of construction and allowed to get the minimum cost per square meter of housing at a high speed of buildings construction.

(Isaev, 2009) The first four-storey frame-panel house in the USSR was built in 1948 in Moscow. At this time the architects and engineers were asked by the country’s authorities to create the cheapest possible project of house with single-family apartments. The first stage was the introduction of the idea of industrial panel house with a bearing frame. Soon an appropriate production base and infrastructure was created: house-building factories, concrete production plants, etc. This allowed 110 million square meters of housing to be constructed annually.(Samoilov, 2012) This chapter of the chapter gives an overview of series of mass socialist housing estates in Odesa. It contains the building series by generations, according to period of construction, and explains their main features. 

69

NUMBER OF FLOORS SPECIFIC FEATURES

SERIES NAME generation (1-3) period of construction

FACADE

Fig. Example of the building

PLAN

design institution technical characteristics

description

Fig. 16. Example of the building

71

4 FLOORS CLASSICAL CORNICE

STONE MASONRY

DECORATIVE GLAZED TILES

BIG WINDOWS

1-424 1st generation 1955 - 1960s

Fig. 17. Odesa, Admirala Lazareva str., 62, 1-424-1

design: Kievproekt (Kyiv) number of flats: 24 - 32 floor height: 3,0 m rooms | kitchen size: 13,84 m2 - 19,32 m2 | 8,71 m2 materials: local materials (stone), brick The 1-424 series were the early prototypes of the Khrushchevka. They were the intermediate stage between the absolute standartization and reduction of Khrushchev architecture and classical design of Stalinist buildings.

Fig. 18. Odesa, Shevchenko Avenue, 6/5, 1-424-3

73

5 FLOORS CLASSICAL CORNICE

STONE MASONRY

DECORATIVE GLAZED TILES

1-437, 1-438 1st generation 1956 - 1962

Fig. 19. Odesa, Lyustdorfskaya str., 88A, 1-438-5

design: Hyprograd (Kyiv) number of flats: 40 floor height: 2,5 m rooms | kitchen size: 8,8 m2 - 16,6 m2 | 5 - 6 m2 materials: bricks, brick blocks, lightweight concrete blocks In this series the further attempt to minimaze the cost of constriction was made, although series 1-438 appeared to be less economical than its’ successors series 480 and 464 and its production was stopped in favor of

Fig. 20. Odesa, Varnenskaya str., 16 / 1, 1-437-6M

75

5 FLOORS SMALL HONESTY WINDOWS GAP

REDUCED SLOPE

1-464 1st generation 1958 - 1978

Fig. 21. Odesa, Kosmonavtiv str., 42, 1-464

design: Giprostroiindustriya (Moscow) number of flats: 80 floor height: 2,5 m rooms | kitchen size: 10,6 m2 - 19,3 m2 |5,6 - 6,3 m2 materials: large-panel 1-464 was developed in the result of the competition anounced after the Khrushchev decree on Elimination of Excesses in Design and Construction.

It became the most widespread industrial series of mass housing in USSR.

Fig. 22. Odesa, Generala Petrova str., 19, 1-464A-1

77

9 FLOORS BIGGER WINDOWS

HONESTY NEW GAP CONFIGURATION

1-464Д 2nd generation 1966 - 1980s

Fig. 23. Odesa, Dobrovolskoho Ave, 151 / 1, 42, 1-464Д-85

design: TSNIIEP Zhilischa (Moscow) number of flats: 216 floor height: 2,6 m rooms | kitchen size: 10,6 m2 - 19,3 m2 |5,6 - 6,3 m2 materials: large-panel I-464Д is a series of 3rd generation. It is a nine-storey modification of the I-464. It is the most widespread high rise series of mass housing built across all the USSR.

Fig. 24. Odesa, Yakova Breusa Str., 29, 1-464Д-85

79

9 FLOORS

87 2nd generation 1970 - 1997

Fig. 25. Odesa, Itshaka Rabina str., 61, 87-0120 / 1

design: KievZNIIEP (Kyiv) number of flats: 144 floor height: 2,55 - 2,6 m rooms | kitchen size: 8 m2 - 19,7 m2 |7,5 - 8,5 m2 materials: large-panel 87 is a series of 3rd generation. It is the most widespread high rise series of mass housing built across all the USSR.

Fig. 26. Odesa, Srednefontanskaya str., 30, 87

81

9 FLOORS

94 3rd generation 1970 - 1997

Fig. 27. Odesa, Aleksandra Nevskogo str., 45, 94

design: KievZNIIEP (Kyiv) number of flats: 144 floor height: 2,55 - 2,6 m rooms | kitchen size: 8 m2 - 19,7 m2 |7,5 - 8,5 m2 materials: large-panel 94 is a series of 3rd generation. It has a different design of the facade from the previous standard series, and form different configurations of the plan layout.

Fig. 28. Odesa, Akademika Zabolotnogo, 57 / 1, 94

83

16 FLOORS

140 3rd generation 1970 - 1997

Fig. 29. Odesa, Balkovskaya str., 36, 111-140-2p

design: KievZNIIEP (Kyiv) number of flats: 144 floor height: 2,55 - 2,6 m rooms | kitchen size: 8 m2 - 19,7 m2 |7,5 - 8,5 m2 materials: large-panel 140 is a series of 3rd generation. It is the most widespread high rise series of mass housing built across all the USSR.

Fig. 30. Odesa, Akademika Vilyamsa str., 56 / 3, 111-140-2p

85

Atlas of vernacular architecture Informal transformation practices

Vernacular architecture does not go through fashion cycles. It is nearly immutable, indeed, unimprovable, since it serves its purpose to perfection. As a rule, the origin of indigenous building forms and construction methods is lost in the distant past.

- Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture Without Architect Districts of post-war development in many post-socialist countries, where the complex renovation measures were never taken by the authorities, are characterized by a wide range of informal and often illigal private activities building transformation - both the building structure and public spaces.

These are reacting to the lack regulations in the housing system.

Vernacular architecture in Odessa has taken various forms and is widely practiced by residents as a quick and economical way to solve housing problems. The design follows the function or the necessity of solving a problem. The urgency of production and the lack of design skills can be clearly observed. Solutions are usually very simple, but serve well to fullfil the housing deficiencies. This practices emerged shortly after the collapse of Soviet Union, and after decades transformed radically the appearance and structure of khrushevkas , creating the totally new ways of living and restructuring the existing environment.

87

‘TSAR - BALCONY’ extension structures and balconies added to the main structure of the building

Fig. 31. Schemes of the balconies

The most common type of modification of khrushevki is enlargement / addition of balconies to the main building structure. In this way the residents expand the space of the apartment. The extensions are usually added individually by the residents, but sometimes they cluster and build up the balconies on several floors at once. Balcony extensions require approval from the relevant local authorities. However, for illegally built extensions an amnesty can be issued, so the extensions get legalized.

88

Fig. 32. Example of the balconies [1]

89

BALCONY ADDED TO BALCONY 90 Fig. 33. Example of the balcony [2]

MULTISTOREY

91 Fig. 34. Example of the balcony [3]

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SPACE appropriation of the public space by residents of the 1st floor

Fig. 35. Example of the first floor privatization [1]

Fig. 36. Schemes of the 1st floor privatization

Generally, the residents of the ground floors of Khrushchevka fence off the areas beneath their windows. Such practices are illegal, but are not controlled in any way. Those plots are used for to plant gardens, create picnic areas, parking spaces, etc.

92

Fig. 37. Example of the first floor privatization [2]

93

FACADE INSULATION fragmented facade insulation

Fig. 38. Facade insulation [1]

Fig. 39. Schemes of the facade insulation

The insulation of facades is a very common practice and, just like the construction of balconies and outbuildings, is usually carried out individually.

94

Fig. 40. Facade insulation [2]

95

96

Fig. 41. Facade insulation [2]

Fig. 42. Facade insulation [3]

97

MURALS applying colors (often bright) and drawings on the facade of the buildings

Fig. 43. Mural [1]

Fig. 44. Schemes of the mural drawings

The use of mosaics and murals on khrushchyovka blind walls was common in the Soviet Union during the 1960s. (KrivĂ˝, 2015) Today painting the mural became a mean of appropriating and giving an identity to the standardised and typified grey building volume of Khrushevka. The projects of murals are usually promoted by the local authorities.

98

Fig. 45. Mural [2]

99

GARAGES [added structures] adding garage structure to the main building volume

Fig. 46. Schemes of the garage

The residents of the Khrushchevkas add structures to the building in order to create a garage inside. Such structures are legal as long as the interests of all tenants are taken into account.

100

Fig. 47. Garages [1]

101

GARAGES [fenced] fencing the plot beneath the 1st floor windows in order to create a parking lot

Fig. 48. Garages [3]

Fig. 49. Schemes of the garage

Fencing the area beneath the bealding is a common practice to create a private garage. Usually it is done by the residents of the ground floor.

102

Fig. 50. Garages [3]

103

GARAGES [clusters] garage structure construction in the courtyards

Fig. 51. Schemes of the garage

Most of the open spaces in the courtyards of khrushchevka are chaotically built up with clusters of garages. These new structures have significantly changed the layout of the neighborhoods.

104

Fig. 52. Garages [3] Fig. 53. Garages [4]

105

INFORMAL ZONING PRACTICES imposing various obstacles in order to redefine the functional uses of the territory

Fig. 1. Schemes of the zoning

In order to redefine the use of territory or to secure the area, residents place various elements that play the role of barriers or fences. This is done usually to limit the entance of the cars.

106

Fig. 54. Zoning [1] Fig. 55. Zoning [2]

107

TYRE URBAN DESIGN improvised urban design of the public spaces (often using tyres)

Fig. 56. Urban design [1]

Fig. 1. Schemes of the urban design

The use of tyres is a classic tool used in the urban design of khrushchevka’s courtyards. They are used in order to place flowerbeds or create various sculptures (often swans).

108

Fig. 57. Urban design [2]

109

110

Fig. 58. Urban design [3]

111

COMMERCIALIZATION [modifications] transformation of the 1st floor facades that are facing the streets into commercial arteries

Fig. 1. Schemes of the commerce

The residential areas of the post-socialist cities have experienced a chaotic process of commercialization since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Within the mass housing areas, along the main transport arteries, the main commercial streets and squares were formed.

112

Fig. 59. Commerce [1] Fig. 60. Commerce [2]

113

COMMERCIALIZATION [new structures] construction of the new commercial structures / buildings along the streets

Fig. 1. Schemes of the commerce

The new pavilions and buildings are also being constructed within the area, often in place of the existing green areas or playgrounds. Such construction often results in conflicts with residents.

114

Fig. 61. Commerce [3] Fig. 62. Commerce [4]

115

A DISCUSSION ON THE SOVIET LEGACY From stigmatization to post-communist nostalgia

Post-communist countries developed a wide range of attitudes towards their past: from the refusal and condemnation of socialist period to post-communist nostalgia. In case of condemnation of past socialist regime strategies imply a deconstruction and erasure of previous regime reminiscences, as well as decontextualization and reframing of the old narrative. It is a ‘de-communization’ of urban space by the removal of the cultural landscapes of socialism, particularly the changing of street names and destruction of socialist-era statues; creation of new ‘European’ identities for post-socialist cities which involve obscuring the socialist era and looking back to a pre-socialist ‘Golden Age’. (Kaczmarek, Young, 2008) Postsocialist identity formation involves conflict over the past at a range of scales and is characterized by a ‘veritable orgy of historical revisionism’ (Verdery, 1999: 112).

Fig. 63. Demolition of the Lenin monument in Kharkov, 2014

Ukraine started the de-communization process since the moment when the country attained independence, and it became most powerful after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014. Over 2500 monuments of Lenin and other communist leaders - symbols of the past totalitarian regime - were dismantled throughout the country during numerous protests. (Fig 65, 66 A large number of settlements and streets in Ukraine that contained communist references were renamed. However, the architecture of Soviet modernism is still part of everyday life for Ukrainians. Socialist heritage is remaining an integral part of Ukrainian cities; many people live in mass housing estates since the childhood and experience it as a daily environment.

The necessity to coexist with ‘unwelcome pasts’ often causes ambivalent feelings among citizens.

“I lost in prestige when I moved in Khrushevka” 7 “I would never buy an apartment here if I had to choose now” 8 “They [Khrushevka] are ugly, they have to be demolished” 9

116

(7, 8, 9) excerpts from interviews

Fig. 64. «Leninopad» (Lenin-fall), illustration from Gazeta.ua

117

Soviet architecture in Ukraine often has a negative connotation. The image of Khrushchevka among Odessans is predominantly negative; it is widely stizmatized, especially by citizens living outside of the socialist housing estates. Though, sometimes khrushevka’s residents are also involved in this process - living in this districts can be associated with a feeling of shame and embarrassment.

Stigmatization and de-stigmatization of the place is a long process. It imposes boundaries that display the categories of social and behavioral dimensions - which are used to classify the individuals as »us« and »them«, exactly as in case of identity creation. Once these categories turn into beliefs - when they become internalized - it is difficult to change them (Bourdieu 1991).

Michele Lamont and Virag Molnar describe the boundaries as „symbolic conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space» (2002:168) When a place becomes stigmatized, it has undergone a negative change in the environment, which then profoundly influences local identity and identity of the dwellers.

The dissatisfaction by standardized large-panel houses started soon after the start of its’ construction, though it was not expressed publicly for many years. It was criticized for the first time in Vladimir Voinovich’s novel “Ivankiada” (1976), it was later on of the reasons why the author got deported from the Soviet Union. Another critics was expressed in the movie «The Irony of Fate» (1976) that begins from the animation showing how huge standardized houses are spreading over all the territories of USSR. Mass disappointment was reflected in literature and cinema and experienced by many thousands of Soviet citizens. In 60s polemic about Soviet housing policy broke out among professional groups. The community of architects doubted the aesthetic merits of panel houses, sociologists argued that it is pointless to force Soviet families to live in the same standard houses. Future residents could not participate in designing their own living spaces, all planning was done on the basis of an average tenant. This «disassociation» from future tenants was brought to extremes in the Soviet Union. (Ruble, 1993) The divergence between the family’s claims, the dynamics of current needs and the ability to realize them in the existing housing revealed itself shortly after residents moved in newly built mass housing estates. This divergence continues to grow today.

118

In the same time, there are groups of people, mostly among the generations having the lived experience of the system, who experience post-communist nostalgia. In post-communist countries nostalgia became a defense mechanism against the accelerated rhythm of change and the economic shock therapy. Svetlana Boym introduces the distinction between restorative and reflective nostalgia. Restorative nostalgia puts emphasis on nostos and proposes to rebuild the lost home and patch up the memory gaps. Reflective nostalgia dwells in algia, in longing and loss, the imperfect process of remembrance. Restorative nostalgia manifests itself in total reconstructions of monuments of the past, while reflective nostalgia lingers on ruins, the patina of time and history, in the dreams of another place and another time. (Boym, 2001) Post-communist nostalgia in Ukraine deal with individual and cultural memory and does not lead to reconstruction of past emblems and rituals, it is thus has rather reflective character. For instance, many residents moved to Khrushevkas from kommunalka (from Russian: коммуналка: an apartment shared by multiple families (from 2 to 10 or more), the product of Soviet forced «densification» program), where the living conditions were extremely poor. They still remember their happiness of moving into their new houses:

(10) excerpts from interviews

“Before we moved in the new apartment, my parents and us, four people in total, lived in a room in kommunalka. When we received the apartment, parents could not believe for a long time that now we have our own kitchen, we don’t have to heat the stove and stand in queues to the toilet anymore.” 10 Even though the change in the living conditions after moving to new housing was often drastic, residents of khruchevka were facing many challenged to live in the radically standardized environment. Shortage in all the domains, including housing supply, was an inherent part of Soviet modus operandi. According to János Kornai, shortage is an inevitable attribute of a socialist, directively managed, administrative and economic mechanism. (Kornai, 1980) In conditions of all-encompassing shortage of housing and functionalist reduction of all its’ parameters people in Soviet Union had to lower significantly the bar of requirements attributed to their

119

Fig. 65. Unique frescoes by Soviet artists Neonila and Albert Nedoseko being used as a display stand inside the furniture store

living environment. A fundamental prerequisite of the individual’ wellbeing is as an attempt to keep the psychological balance as the relation to the environment (Inalhan, Finch 2011). The attempt to create and sustain the bond to one’s environment equals to the attempt to maintain one’s own well-being in general. In case the people cannot leave the group and escape the negative affiliation with the group, they have a strong tendency to deny the negative characteristics and reinterpret then as positive self-concepts (Tajfel, Turner 1986). The Soviet people did not have an opportunity to choose or design a house, they were forced to live in conditions that were imposed on them. As a result, the subjective feeling of a comfortable house was recreated by reducing expectations, i.e. a conscious desire to be satisfied with little. For instance, residents of Cheremushki defend the functional defects of houses presenting them as positive:

“The absence of the elevator is not a problem. The elevator

120

is uncomfortable - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

Walking is good for health. In the new houses elevators are even falling and people are dying.” 11 or recognizing the problem as insignificant: (11, 12) excerpts from interviews

“I don’t mind how they [Khrushevka] look, it’s not important”

12

Currently we can observe a wide mosaic made from various collective experiences and memories related to socialist living environment.

Interviews conducted with Khrushchevka residents that are presented in this chapter provides insight into this patterns. We can observe the process of stigmatization, mainly from citizens who live outside the districts of mass socialist housing.

121

PUBLIC DISCOURSE Khrushevki as a place of cultural heritage

Architecture is a testimony and social expression of a certain historical era.

Spatial, social and historical aspects of the identity of post-war architecture, in Ukraine today are the subject of discussion solely in a narrow circle of professional field. The characteristics and potential of such areas as important housing resources, as well as the cultural heritage and social space linked to collective memory, are being discussed.

“It is obvious that khrushevki are experiencing moral aging. But there is no point to destroy them, they used to be an important social elevator. We have to respect our heritage – it is a part of Fig. 66. Project of the interior renovation «Khrushchevskiy loft» in Kyiv, balbek bureau

«It’s better not to stress the apartment’s history in khrushevka, it’s already as clear as the voices from the apartment next door.»

- from the comments on the project

122

Fig. 67. Project of the interior renovation «Khrushchevskiy loft» in Kyiv, balbek bureau

our genetic code. There is a number of projects in the world to renovate them. I think they can adapt to the new environment.

It’s a question o a right approach. We just need to figure out who we are, what we can use as an instrument in future, and what we can leave behind.”

Oleg Drozdov, Ukrainian architect

“They [khrushevka] have a very negative reputation in Ukraine.

No matter how cool we say it is, no one will believe it. Most will offer to demolish them and build a brand new building.

Khrushchevkas are a lost history.”

Slava Balbek, Ukrainian architect

123

Meanwhile, within the public discourse residential areas of the post-war era are frequently being attacked by politicians and journalists. The most common concerns here are functional and technical deficiencies and the current dilapidated state of such buildings. Currently in Kyiv politicians and construction companies are lobbying for the demolition of post-war mass housing. The reasons are similar to those in Moscow - extremely high demand for vacant land for the new development. New 25-storey buildings are planned to be built on the territory of Soviet microrayons. Doing so, the density will be increased from 130-150 people to 500-550 people per hectare. in the late 1990s, an attempt to renovate postwar housing was made.

The bill «Reconstruction of residential buildings of the first mass series» intended to improve the insulation of the facades and add living space to about 2 million apartments. Several pilot buildings were renovated in Kyiv, but the project was halted due to lack of funds.

«Two million wasn’t enough. Either stolen or something else.

They had to change the electrical installation, the pipes inside.

And it turned out, they only made the facade.»

Extracts from the newspapers: (on the right) 1. Decaying houses in Ukraine - a hardly discussed heritage The Ukrainian housing stock is a ticking time bomb. Soviet-era buildings have reached the end of their service life and can collapse at any moment.

2. Hard breath of Ukrainian cities Ukrainian cities are waiting for revitalization, but municipalities are not in a hurry to take the process into their own hands.

4. The problem of dormitory suburb: When the «Khrushchevka» apocalypse will happen in Odessa 5. «Khrushchevki» of Odessa. Does history have a future?

124

Fig. 68. Headlines from Ukrainian newspapers

1

2

3

4

5

125

126

COMMUNITIES IN KHRUSHCHEVKAS From socialist collective identity to hyper-individualization

The process of individualization and weakening of social cohesion can be easily read from Khrushchevka’ facades - over last decades these buildings became an arithmetic average between the Latin American favelas and the mass housing produced by socialist industrial machine. The transformations that occurred on the facade envelops and spread across the public spaces of the mass housing are only the most evident expression of a more complex process of social, cultural, political and economic change. Mass housing estates, a product and manifestation of one historical epoch, now remain in a totally different environment without any structural interventions.

Generations are gradually changing inside these neighbourhoods. People who “obtained” and apartment in mass housing the Soviet Union or were living in such houses during soviet period, recall that an active community life was an everyday background of life in Khrushchevkas. Today rather the opposite in true: residents usually don’t even know each other. There is a shift from the community way of living towards individualization and loss of social bond. A closer look to internal life of Khrushchevka’ communities shows that many, if not most of the issues arising there, could be solved if a better cooperation exist between the residents. The late-modernist and capitalist individualization is not something new in nowadays societies, but in Ukrainian socialist mass housing neighbourhoods it is brought to the extreme, becoming a sort of hyper-individualization. What are the reasons of weakening social cohesion in the mass housing estates? Which is the process The common thread running through almost all the interviews are the general feeling of mistrust and disillusionment among the khrushevkas residents, in relation to local and state authorities, but also between each other. The way the communities in Khrushchevkas are organized changed dramatically since the country gained independence. If initially the concept of Khrushchevka incorporated the vision of the “communist way of life” and provided, apart from the spatial organization, a variety of social structures; today the residents seem not to have any common beliefs and

Fig. 69. Odesa, balcony in Poselok Kotovskogo

127

goals, they do not cooperate, and there is no social bond between them.

The most Khrushchevkas residents that were interviewed stated that they do not know other tenants of their compound, and, in most situations, they are not willing to interact with them in any way. Often even the most urgent situations are not solved as there is no cooperation between tenants.

“There are many old people living in our compound, they can’t afford paying for housing repair […] One of the tenants offered to pay the full cost of replacing the pipes in the entire house, but it was anyway impossible to coordinate between tenants and agree to start the construction works” 13 The changes occurred following the rapidly changing country’s political and social landscape. During the Soviet epoch, the regime actively encouraged citizens to engage in the social life, management and surveillance of their neighbourhoods. The interviewees who lived in the mass housing districts during the Soviet period, remember the high level of community engagement, but also a blurred line between private and public, often forcibly imposed on their personal life.

“A must-have attribute of all the Khrushevka at that time were two benches at the entrance where one or two “babushka” (from Russian: бабушка, for «grannies») were always on duty.

Babushkas constantly kept an eye on safety: if a stranger passed by, they always asked him whom he was and where he was going.” 14 «Everyone in the house knew everything about each other: not because we all were close friends, but because everyone could hear everything through the thin walls.” 15 The individual was a part of the whole; the apartment was not thought to be a detached self-autonomous unit, but rather a part of the system that establish the relationships between the citizens and their environment.

(Ikonnikov, 1973) Residents were encouraged to join neighbourhood

128

(13, 14, 15) excerpts from interviews

social organizations ranging from parents committees to local foot patrols druzhini. In this way dwellers operated at the very intersection of “state” and “society” inside their local communities. Such a social organization was a powerful tool for government to become a part of everyday life of Soviet people. As a result, during the Soviet Union period, Khrushevka’ resident shared a common identity and beliefs, they were engaged in a wide range of collective practices and political activities on an everyday basis.

Over time, the spaces of mass housing did not change significantly, apart from the scattered individually-performed transformations (Chapter III, Atlas of vernacular architecture); what did change were the meanings and concepts that residents employ in relations to socialist housing blocks.

The mass housing is not anymore a part of the socialist utopia; the soviet world disappeared, and so the socialist way of living and beliefs did. Today Khrushchevkas declined physically and socially, they became a place of stigma. First changes started to occur shortly after the demise of Soviet Union and reestablishment of Ukraine state independence. The mass housing districts with its’ vast empty spaces in-between the buildings, absence of division between private and public, peripheral location, became a perfect place for criminal activities. The mass housing compounds that were once safe and regulated, in short period of time became a stage for informal and illegal practices, within the extremely vague and unstable political and economic context.

(16) excerpts from interviews

“We were living in Krhushevka with my parents, there was a big park nearby our house. We had to move from our neighbourhood in 90s as it was not safe to live there anymore” 16 Starting from 90s - the period of economic crisis and widespread social unrest in Ukraine and other countries that went through the socialistcapitalist transition - the community life started to disappear and became rather secondary in the face of all-encompassing economic crisis, instability and growing crime rates. In this conditions of mass disillusionment and mistrust, the family institute became a last stronghold, replacing community networks as well as state social welfare. Two parallel tendencies can be observed: on the one hand, the decay of community life and

129

disappearance of trust and engagement; and, on the other hand, as a sort of balance, increasing role of the family institute in the wellbeing of the society. For example today, in the absence of comprehensive state housing programs, the important mechanism of solving the housing problem is inheritance. At some point, communities began to lose their ties, and this process is ongoing until now. As a result of long-term widespread frustration, absence of social movements and lack of local leaders, citizens lost a sense of empowerment and became skeptical about the possibility of a comprehensive state interventions or local community activation.

“I don’t think that any fundings to renovate old housing stock are feasible, it’s better to invest money in the renovation of the historical part of the city” 17 “It is impossible to do any interventions in the building, tenants don’t have any interest to do so” 18 This process is common in Ukraine and other post-socialist countries that didn’t form an efficient regulatory framework during the years of independence. Although, residents of mass housing are particularly vulnerable because due to particular social composition mix of these neighbourhoods. For example, many of apartments are still inhabited by people who received them 50-60 years ago: those are elderly retired people who often live alone and rely on the state welfare system.

Another group of tenants are those who rent an apartment as a temporary housing solution. Khrushchevkas are a low-cost segment of the housing market in most Ukrainian cities because of the poor building structure conditions and peripheral location of such neighbourhoods. Rent market in Ukraine is not secure, so most families try to invest in buying their house as soon as they can. Renting is often used as an intermediate step, and therefore renters often do not establish any connection with other tenants and do not participate in the housing management and repair.

While there is a common pattern, the situation varies considerably depending on the location of the area. In more peripheral areas, where the social composition of the district is more stable, residents establish more

130

(17, 18) excerpts from interviews

connections and there are more local practices and unspoken rules. In such areas, people feel as if they live in a village rather than in the city. It is a case for example in Chernomorskoye in Odessa, the mass housing district that was built for the military workers. Residents have often spent their whole lives there and they all know each other. There are more local initiatives in this area in comparison to other districts, in terms of social activities as well as building renovation and repair. People are more likely to share the space in the district: for example, a barbecue area or a lounge built by one residents is used as well by other residents. When the construction of balconies and extensions turned out to be the only way for local residents to improve their living conditions, unspoken rules were established in the district in order to regulate the harm caused to neighbours by new structures. The function that the state was not able to undertake, was now performed in a self-organized way by the tenants themselves. Such forms of cooperation are not common in housing estates in other areas, where people tend to be more suspicious to each other and thus less cooperative.

Over time the generic mass housing blocks lost its previous meanings and didn’t form new ones; its’ spaces became impersonalized. The traces of common way of living that existed before now disappeared, the spaces became neglected and abandoned by its inhabitants, and people tend to live in their apartments as they were a fortresses, building the walls of mental and spatial exclusion from “others” behind the wall. . It all did not happen in one moment, but there was rather a long process of social and cultural change; and there is another long way to make things change again.

131

132

CONCLUSION Final remarks

Mass housing is often seen as a great failure of architecture. In contemporary context it is often not recognized as an important part of urban fabric, and it get widely stigmatized. In Ukrainian cities it is particularly true.

However, interviews with Khrushevkas residents show that the socialist districts adopted to political agenda of capitalist market better than the one could think. Areas of mass residential housing were transformed by local residents’ efforts, and became a remote reminder of the original rational projects. They might look like an architect’s nightmare, but the interviews with the residents demonstrates that the neighborhoods have adapted surprisingly well to new residents’ expectations, due to the large amount of green spaces, well-thought infrastructures provided by the initial masterplan, and the introduction of chaotic, often illegal, though functional additional structures.

However, citizens living outside of the mass housing areas often perceive Khrushevkas almost as it were an exclusion zone. There is a coexisting variety of attitudes towards the «Soviet» past, ranging from nationalist to socialist-nostalgic narratives. Today in Ukraine, Soviet housing is perceived not as a historical context, but rather as a routine background, a reality of everyday life. Since perestroika, the Soviet cultural and symbolic hegemony in Ukraine has been replaced by national symbols, and everything «Soviet» now is perceived in ambivalent way. Although, the heritage of the socialist city remains an integral part of our culture, history and social life.

Today the mass housing estates attract a growing attention from the side experts and activists in Ukraine. Mass housing is discussed from the point of view of its’ particular architectural qualities and historical and cultural value. At the same time, in major cities of Ukraine, districts of mass housing development become the subject of negotiation between developers, politicians and other actors, as they are an easy target to be demolished and clean out a large-scale plot for a new development. It is time now to rethink and re-evaluate the heritage of soviet epoch.

133

134

INTERVIEWS translated from Russian into English by the author

135

Elena Dmitrievna 82 years old French teacher kommunalka (Odesa)

9-storey panel house “cheshka”(Odesa)

Khrushchevka (Odesa)

Before moving to her apartment in Khrushchevka, Elena Dmitrievna and her husband lived in the room in kommunalka and then in the apartment in a 9-storey panel house “cheshka”. In 1980’ she went to work in Algeria as an interpreter, and upon return to USSR she bought an apartment in Odesa. At the moment she lives with her son in a three-room apartment on the 4th floor in Khrushchevka. Every day she gives remote French lessons

by Skype to students from abroad.

Elena Dmitrievna describes the relationship between the residents of the house as friendly, even family-like – they form a strong community with a high degree of mutual support. For instance, in case if there is a damage happened in someone’s apartment, local residents help with the repair works. While going to the street market, Elena Dmitrievna buys groceries for herself and also for her neighbors. She gives French lessons to her neighbors’ children free of charge. There are regular households meetings and the chairman of the housing cooperative monitors the condition of the house and solve the problems in case if necessary.

Fig. 69. Apartment of Elena Dmitrievna [1]

She notes a good transport connection of Cheryomushki district with the city, especially with “privoz” - local grocery market that is reached from Cheryomushki by tram. Elena Dmitrievna is happy to live on the upper floors of a house without the elevator: “The absence of the elevator is not a problem. The elevator is uncomfortable - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Walking up the stairs is good for health. Having an elevator can be dangerous - in the new houses elevators are falling and people are dying.”

The major inconveniences for her are extremely small tiny kitchen and the bathroom; necessity to cross one the room to get to another one.

In general, life in a low-story and densely-packed Khrushchevka reminds her of a rural, simple life, and she would not choose to move to another house.

136

Fig. 70. Apartment of Elena Dmitrievna [2]

137

Irina 30 years old Professor of sociology Khrushchevka (Izmail)

university dormitory (Odesa)

Khrushchevka (Odesa)

Irina has been living in Cheremushki in a three-room apartment for the last 10 years. Before moving to Khrushchevka she lived in a university dormitory.

In the beginning she was living in an apartment alone, now she lives together with her husband and a dog. Before she moved in to her apartment, it was rented out to 3 students.

During the Soviet Union, apartments in the house where Irina lives were “received” from the government by school teachers. Many of the apartments are still owned by members of the same families. As the residents have been living in this house for a long time, they usually know each other well. Part of the apartments are rented out, on the ground floor of the house there is an apartment that is used as a warehouse. Tenants of the house created OSBB in order to manage the house maintenance. The former head of the OSBB lived in the same house and when he get retired, he found successors in the same house. The residents are collecting money to install new windows, heat consumption counters, sensory light sensors in the staircases, door phones.

Sensor have been damaged and stolen several times, forcing tenants to put up an armored entrance door to the building. Sometimes tenants of the house are meeting to work together during “subbotnik” (from Russian: суббота, for «Saturday»; tradition originating from the Soviet period, it is a conscious organized free labor for the benefit of the community). For instance, during one of subbotnik residents of the house installed together a playground.

Irina notes the well-designed infrastructures of Cheryomushki - good transport connections to the city, a lot of green spaces in-between the buildings, big park in two blocks from the house; extensive space where she can walk with her dog. She particularly likes opening from her windows on the chestnut garden. However, she says that if she didn’t have a dog she is unlikely to go out for a walk within her area, as there is “nothing to do around”. In terms of service provision of the neighbourhood, there are many

138

Fig. 71. Apartment of Irina

illegal outdoor markets around which she founds very convenient there are all types of products within the walking distance.

The city is getting increasingly automobilized, and as the result the courtyards of the neighbourhood are used exstensevely by cars. Drivers often shortcut the way passing through the courtyards. The residents themselves block the entrance for cars with improvised barriers such as bricks. There are a lot of chaotic car parkings, and many new garages have been built breaking the initial structure of the district and hindering the pedestrian circulation.

The house is poorly maintained. Residents have to call an emergency service every month to clean the pipes, otherwise the sewerage system stop working.

There are a lot of cases of burglary happening - only during the last year 6 apartments in the house were bulgarized. Due to the recent increase in crime rates on the streets of the districts, the police have started patrolling busy intersections in the evenings, from 6 to 12.

139

Olha and Victor 49 and 52 years old Nuclear engineers Khrushchevka (Moscow)

new 16-storey panel building (Moscow)

Khrushchevka (Odesa)

Olga and Viktor bought an apartment in Khrushchevka 7 years ago. Before they lived in three with their daughter, two years ago she moved away.

Before they bought the apartment, it was rented out to another family. They chose an apartment in an old house because it was the most economical option within the area they wanted to live in, also because the apartment had a storage room.

Almost none of the neighbours in their house know each other, everyone has an individualistic lifestyle. One of the reasons is that most of the apartments in the house are rented out and the tenants change frequently.

In general, tenants do not trust each other and are often indifferent even to urgent problems of the building. The building is managed by the jek, but this structure rarely effectively solves the problems in the building. For example, in the house there are regular issues with the sewerage system as the sewerage pipes were never replaced and renovated since the house was built. Residents of the building often refuse to take part in the problem solving, which is done by the ground floor residents who suffer most from clogged pipes. Often there is not only no financial involvement, but also no interest and initiative - for example, one of the tenants of the building offered to pay the full cost of replacing the pipes in the entire house entrance, but even for this they failed to cooperate and prepare the necessary documents.

This is due, on the one hand, to the fact that most of the tenants rent an apartment for a relatively short period of time and they have no motivation to engage in major renovation of the house. The rest of the tenants are elderly people who usually have no financial means to participate in the renovation. There are several elderly people living on the upper floors of the building who are not able to go downstairs because the building is not equipped with an elevator.

A new residential complex has recently been built next to the house and

140

Fig. 72. Apartment of Olha and Victor

its territory has been closed by a fence. Khrushchevka is now cut off from the opposite street, where many commercial facilities are located, and which is an important transport artery of the city. As a result, all residents of Khrushchevka had to make a copy of the keys to the entrance to the residential complex to be able to get directly to the cut-off street.

The adjacent area is almost never being cleaned, although a cleaning bill comes in every month (about 10 euros).

The benches in the yard were removed by the tenants of the houses, as they were used by homeless people to sleep on them. In summer the tenants of the houses, especially elderly people, go out to sit in the yard with their chairs.

141

Vyacheslav 60 years old Condominium chairman Germany

9-storey panel house “cheshka”(Odesa)

Khrushchevka (Odesa)

Vyacheslav lives in Khrushchevka together with his wife since 2001. They bought the apartment in Khrushchevka because they were changing the house but wanted to live in the same part of the city as before, and Khrushchevka the most low-budget option.

Half of the tenants in the house are retired people who “received” an apartment during Soviet times, the rest half of the apartments are rented.

The tenants who live in the house since long time normally have closer relations with each other than those who rent apartments.

The ground floor residents usually take care of the plot in front of their windows, even though it is not their property. The facade of the house overlooks an alley, so there are several offices located in the apartments on the ground floor.

The tenants have registered a OSBB, where currently Vyacheslav is a chairman. They changed the sewerage pipes in the house, fixed the roof, replaced the windows in the common areas, organized cleaning of the adjacent territory. Besides, the repairs and maintenance are sometimes conducted at the expense of the municipality. This usually happens shortly before the elections – in this way candidates for deputy seek the support of the electorate. For example, before the last elections the pathways in front of the building were paved and the playground was installed.

The building is extensively built-up with extensions. The extensions and balconies started to be constructed in the 90s. In regard to the state of the house, the durability of the structures and the quality of facade are often higher than in new houses constructed in the city. There are issues with the electrical wiring that was not designed for the current number of consumers.

142

Fig. 73. Apartment of Vyacheslav

143

Tetya Natasha 73 years old Engineer House in Tuapse, Russia

Kommunalka (Odesa)

Khrushchevka (Odesa)

Tetya Natasha’s family received an apartment in Khrushchevka in 1963.

The family had a first priority to move in the new apartment as Tetya Natasha’s father was awarded The Order of Lenin. When they moved in, there were 3 generations living together – 9 family members in total, among them 4 children. At first after they moved in, her parents couldn’t believe they don’t have to wait in line to the toilet and bathroom anymore, and there is no need to heat the house with a stove. Now Tetya Natasha lives alone in the same apartment and rents one room to a student. She covers her living expenses with the rent that she get. She lives on the ground floor of the building that faces a local commercial street, she received several proposals to sell the apartment to be used for offices, but she didn’t want to move. However, she says that if she had to decide where to move now, she wouldn’t have chosen an apartment in Khrushchevka anymore.

She has a good relations with neighbours who live in the house since long time ago, but with neighbours who rent apartments she is hardly acquainted.

Tetya Natasha’s family used to live for almost one year in the apartment of their neighbours while their own apartment was under renovation. Later families again lived together in the apartment of Tetya Natasha when the neighbours started their own renovation works. Many of her neighbours often leave her the keys of their apartments when they leave the city. There are elderly people living on the upper floors who find difficult to go down the stairs, and they never go out.

There are only 3 out of 18 apartments in the house where the owners live, the rest are all rented out. The tenants normally do not care about conditions of the house. They do not participate in house maintenance.

The building is operated by JEK and does not switch to a OSBB because there is no initiative for changes from the tenants side. Regularly, once or twice per month, the sewage system stop working, and it is only repaired

144

Fig. 74. Apartment of Tetya Natasha

by the residents of the ground floor (usually by Tetya Natasha herself).

The courtyard is not getting cleaned irregularly, although bills for cleaning come every month. The heating costs are rising and it is becoming way too expensive to pay it in winter.

Originally, when the house was built, benches were installed in front of the entrance, but they were later dismantled by the residents as they were used by homeless and drug- / alcohol-addicted groups. Tetya Natasha with the her neighbours used to plant a small garden in front of the house, - with tulips and trees of lilac, - but now when they try to do so, the passers-by are tearing it down. The courtyards used to be quiet and free of cars in past, but now all the space including the sidewalks is used for parking.

During the USSR period, there was only one grocery store and a dairyselling kiosk in the district, while now all the first floors are occupied by shops and offices. There is also a lot of illigal commerce around.

145

Nina Vasilyevna 55 years old Engineer and economist Single-family house

Khrushchevka

Stalinka

In 1970 Nina Vasilyevna’s parents bought a house in a cooperative house estate in installments for 20 years, for 25 rubles per month. When the family moved to new apartment, they were living in 4: parents and two children. They moved to Khrushchevka from a single-family house with no facilities. Nina Vasilyevna describes the new apartment in Khrushevka as «2nd floor, 2 rooms, “tram”-apartment, kitchen 5,5». The family lived in Khrushevka from 1970 to to the year 2000.

A must-have attribute of all the Khrushevka at that time were two benches at the entrance where one or two “babushka” (from Russian: бабушка, for «grannies») were always on duty. Babushkas constantly kept an eye on safety: if a stranger passed by, they always asked him whom he was and where he was going. In general, the area was very safe during the Soviet times, no crime had ever occurred. The design of the panel housing blurred the line between personal and public: «Everyone in the house knew everything about each other: not because we all were close friends, but because everyone could hear everything through the thin walls.”

Most of Nina Vasilyevna’s memories from that times are related to the warm atmosphere in which all tenants of the house lived. For example, every day someone from the parents cooked hot bread for all the children that were playing in the courtyard. In case of the bad weather, all the children were brought to the house of a family that were staying home on that day.

In winter the tenants of the house carried buckets of water to create the improvised skating rink for the children. Nina Vasilyevna says that in no other house she had such a friendly relations with her neighbours.

The family moved from Khrushchevka to Stalinka in the city-center in 90s. Their old house was situated next to a large park, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union parks started to attract all sorts of crime.

146

Fig. 75. Apartment of Nina Vasilyevna

147

Yulia 32 years old Professor of philosophy Single-family house (Odesa)

new 16-storey house (Odesa)

Khrushevka (Chornomorske village, Odesa)

Julia lives in a two-room apartment in Khrushchevka with her sister and husband. The experience of living in a Khrushchevka is the most negative in her life. The apartment has very few space, the ceilings are low. Inside it is humid, there is constantly mold on the walls, even after insulation of the façade. The roof leaks all the time. There are chaotic car parking under the house. Residents of the house can’t find a worker to clean the area, so they have to clean the playground themselves that their children can use it. The door phone downstairs is periodically getting vandalized, so the residents have to buy a new one. The courtyard is not lighted at night, and the residents themselves brought out projectors to illuminate it. The house faces the street and there is a notary’s office on the ground floor.

Julia wouldn’t have gone out for a walk in the area if she didn’t have a dog.

There are a lot of conflict in the Cheryomushki district related to new construction. A large number of shopping malls are being built, often against the will of the residents of nearby houses. The developers have worked out the following scheme: they transfer money to the account of the houses that are further away from the planned development, and in return the residents of these houses give their agreement to build the mall.

Meanwhile the residents of the adjacent houses organize strikes and protests, but usually they cannot achieve any result. During these new constructions the trees are often getting cut down, public spaces and playgrounds are destroyed, and new buildings are built too close to neighboring houses and may disrupt the light or privacy of residents.

148

Fig. 76. Apartment of Yulia

149

Natalia 25 years old Architect Khrushchevka (Odesa)

new 16-storey house (Odesa)

Khrushevka (Odesa)

Natalia grew up in the village of Chernomorskoye in Khrushchevka with her parents. Now she lives in a house next door, also Khrushchevka, with her husband and child. She decided to stay in the village because prices for housing there are lower than in the city and it was easier to buy an apartment. It was also convenient for a young family to live next to their parents.

The village is very small and safe. Most people have lived there for a long time, and everyone knows each other and everything about each other.

There is an elevator in the house, but residents rarely use it because it is poorly maintained and often get stucked. The design of the apartment is uncomfortable, there is very little space. The kitchen and bathroom are particularly tiny and uncomfortable.

150

Fig. 79. Apartement of Natalia

151

Elena 43 years old Designer 9-storey panel house (Chelyabinsk)

Khrushevka (Chornomorske village, Odesa)

Elena lives with her husband in the apartment in Khrushchevka in Chornomorske village in Odesa. When the family moved in, they were four of them: parents and two children. Later both children moved away, and now Elena and her husband live in the apartment in two of them.

When they just moved in, there was no electricity or gas, all the amenities were provided later. All apartments in the village are still equipped with gas cylinders, and there were several cases of explosion in the houses. Recently a gas pipeline has been built on the territory of the village, but in order to connect the house it is it necessary that all the tenants in the house pay for it. Therefore, most people continue using gas cylinders.

The settlement is very small (about 7000 thousand people) and everyone knows each other. Most people work outside the village, they commute every day to the city-center, and on the way home they discuss the latest news in the village. Everyone in the village knows everything about each other.

There were several modifications of the apartment performed. The bathroom and restroom have been joined and enlarged. After the second child was born, a two-room flat wasn’t enough for the whole family. In order for both children to have their own room, Elena received permission to expand the apartment, and the family built a balcony. The following unspoken rule applies in the village: in case if one decide to build a balcony and the balcony blocks the light to a neighbour, the one who build a balcony has to pay compensation to the one affected (1000 euros). This is an unofficial rule, but normally when someone is planning to build an extension, they count the price of the balcony including this «light fee». In case of Elena’s apartment, the neighbours downstairs had already built the extension before, and the next window on the same floor was the one of their own kitchen, so they didn’t have to pay.

152

Fig. 77. Apartement of Elena

Many tenants understand that they disrupt the aesthetics of the facades, but most of them are forced to increase the area of the tiny apartment. Some tenants try to use the color palette of the house to reduce the impact, while others just use materials and colors that they like.

Residents on the ground floor of the house often plant gardens and create barbecue areas. BBQ areas are often rented out to other tenants as well. 

153

Andrey 30 years old Entrepreneur Khrushchevka (Odesa)

new 16-storey house (Odesa)

Khrushevka (Odesa)

Moved into Khrushevka 2 years ago. Before he lived in Kyiv and often moved from one place to another, but most often lived in new houses. The house where he now lives is situated in the village that was built for the military workers. Most tenants own their apartments; it is difficult to rent a house in the village for a long term. The village is 14 km away from the city-centre, on the coast of the Black Sea. The local residents usually spend their free time at the seaside. A common practice is to rent an apartment in the summer for tourists coming for a vacation at the seaside. Meanwhile, residents move to a family or friends’ houses in order to free their apartment.

The house is very old, in a very poor conditions. The tenants of the house solve only the most urgent problems. For example, they have recently fixed the roof that was leaking. Residents do not form OSBB because it requires more funding from the tenants side a lot of paperwork. Residents communicate only when necessary and few people know each other well. Andrey knows several neighbours from his house, but does not communicate closely with anyone. He says that he prefers spending time at home with a book rather than communicating.

Andrey misses outdoor sport equipment in the area, in the village there is only a football field that belongs to the school and it is locked behind the fences.

154

Fig. 78. Apartment of Andrey

155

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1. Map of Ukraine

15

Fig. 2. Satellite image of Odesa

15

Fig. 3. Drawing of Odesa, 1850’

18

Fig. 4. Plan of Odesa, 1894

18

Fig. 5. Population of Odesa by district

26

Fig. 6. Cover. First Secretary of the Communist Party Nikita Khrushchev inspecting architectural projects, 1962 32 Fig. 7. Kyiv, Khreshchatyk, example of Stalinist Empire style architecture 34 Fig. 8. Kyiv, suburbs, example of Khrushchev architecture

34

Fig. 9. Snapshots from the Soviet slapstick comedy film «Operation Y and Shurik’s Other Adventures», 1965 (Odesa, period of intensive mass housing construction) 42 Fig. 10. Demolition of khrushchevka in Moscow

50

Fig. 11. Oleanderweg,

52

Halle-Neustadt, Germany

Fig. 12. Drkolnov housing estate, Pribram, Czech Republic

55

Fig. 13. Drkolnov housing estate, Pribram, Czech Republic

57

Fig. 14. Typical khrushchevka’s courtyard, Odesa

66

Fig. 15. Typical courtyard in the new housing compounds, Odesa

66

Fig. 16. Example of the building

71

Fig. 17. Odesa, Admirala Lazareva str., 62, 1-424-1

73

Fig. 18. Odesa, Shevchenko Avenue, 6/5, 1-424-3

73

Fig. 19. Odesa, Lyustdorfskaya str., 88A, 1-438-5

75

Fig. 20. Odesa, Varnenskaya str., 16 / 1, 1-437-6M

75

Fig. 21. Odesa, Kosmonavtiv str., 42, 1-464

77

156

Fig. 22. Odesa, Generala Petrova str., 19, 1-464A-1

77

Fig. 23. Odesa, Dobrovolskoho Ave, 151 / 1, 42, 1-464Đ”-85

79

Fig. 24. Odesa, Yakova Breusa Str., 29, 1-464Đ”-85 79 Fig. 25. Odesa, Itshaka Rabina str., 61, 87-0120 / 1

81

Fig. 26. Odesa, Srednefontanskaya str., 30, 87

81

Fig. 27. Odesa, Aleksandra Nevskogo str., 45, 94

83

Fig. 28. Odesa, Akademika Zabolotnogo, 57 / 1, 94

83

Fig. 29. Odesa, Balkovskaya str., 36, 111-140-2p

85

Fig. 30. Odesa, Akademika Vilyamsa str., 56 / 3,

85

Fig. 31. Schemes of the balconies

88

Fig. 32. Example of the balconies [1]

88

Fig. 33. Example of the balcony [2]

90

Fig. 34. Example of the balcony [3]

91

Fig. 35. Example of the first floor privatization [1]

92

Fig. 36. Schemes of the 1st floor privatization

92

Fig. 37. Example of the first floor privatization [2]

92

Fig. 38. Facade insulation [1]

94

Fig. 39. Schemes of the facade insulation

94

Fig. 40. Facade insulation [2]

94

Fig. 41. Facade insulation [2]

96

Fig. 42. Facade insulation [3]

97

Fig. 43. Mural [1]

98

Fig. 44. Schemes of the mural drawings

98

Fig. 45. Mural [2]

98

Fig. 46. Schemes of the garage

100

Fig. 47. Garages [1]

100

157

Fig. 48. Garages [3]

102

Fig. 49. Schemes of the garage

102

Fig. 50. Garages [3]

102

Fig. 51. Schemes of the garage

104

Fig. 52. Garages [3]

104

Fig. 53. Garages [4]

104

Fig. 1. Schemes of the zoning

106

Fig. 54. Zoning [1]

106

Fig. 55. Zoning [2]

106

Fig. 1. Schemes of the urban design

108

Fig. 56. Urban design [1]

108

Fig. 57. Urban design [2]

108

Fig. 58. Urban design [3]

110

Fig. 1. Schemes of the commerce

112

Fig. 59. Commerce [1]

112

Fig. 60. Commerce [2]

112

Fig. 1. Schemes of the commerce

114

Fig. 61. Commerce [3]

114

Fig. 62. Commerce [4]

114

Fig. 63. Demolition of the Lenin monument in Kharkov, 2014

116

Fig. 64. «Leninopad»

116

(Lenin-fall), illustration from Gazeta.ua

Fig. 65. Unique frescoes by Soviet artists Neonila and Albert Nedoseko being used as a display stand inside the furniture store 120 Fig. 66. Project of the interior renovation «Khrushchevskiy loft» in Kyiv, balbek bureau 122 Fig. 67. Project of the interior renovation «Khrushchevskiy loft» in Kyiv, balbek bureau 122

158

Fig. 68. Headlines from Ukrainian newspapers

124

Fig. 69. Apartment of Elena Dmitrievna [1]

136

Fig. 70. Apartment of Elena Dmitrievna [2]

136

Fig. 71. Apartment of Irina

138

Fig. 72. Apartment of Olha and Victor

140

Fig. 73. Apartment of Vyacheslav

142

Fig. 74. Apartment of Tetya Natasha

144

Fig. 75. Apartment of Nina Vasilyevna

146

Fig. 76. Apartment of Yulia

148

Fig. 79. Apartement of Natalia

150

Fig. 77. Apartement of Elena

152

Fig. 78. Apartment of Andrey

154

LIST OF TABLES

Table. 1. Historical timeline of Odesa

23

Table. 2. Urban evolution of the city in the period of 19 - 21 century 25 Table. 3. Ethnic composition of population in Odesa in the period of 19 21 century 29

159

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boychenko A.M., Ginzburg Sh. M., Zherdetskiy P. F., Prisedko B. S. Stroitelstvo zhilyih zdaniy iz krupnyih paneley. Iz opyita Glavkievstroya.

Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo literaturyi po stroitelstvu i arhitukture i stroitelnyim materialam, 1961.

Boym S. The Future of Nostalgia, New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Brumfild U., Rubl B. Zhilische v Rossii: vek HH. Arhitektura i sotsialnaya istoriya, Moskva:ÂťTrikvadrataÂť, 2002.

Dril N., Bibik N. Trends of housing construction development in Ukraine: Retrospective and contemporary situation. Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management, 2017.

Durmanov V. Y. Sotsialnaya osnova planirovochnogo razvitiya zhilischa.

Moskva: Tsentralnyiy NII teorii i istorii arhitekturyi, 1992.

Engel B., Mass Housing in the Socialist City: Heritage, Values, and Perspectives, Berlin: DOM Publishers, 2019.

Fedor T.S. Patterns of Urban Growth in the Russian Empire during the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, 1975.

Fedoriv P., Lomonosova N., Derzhavna zhitlova politika v Ukrayini: suchasniy stan ta perspektivi reformuvannya. Kyiv: CEDOS think tank, 2019.

Firsov B. M. Raznomyislie v SSSR. 1940-1960-e godyi: Istoriya, teoriya i praktiki. Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatelstvo Evropeyskogo universiteta v SanktPeterburge: Evropeyskiy Dom, 2008.

Gluschenko I., Kagarlitskiy B., Kurennoy V. SSSR. Zhizn posle Smerti (Issledovaniya kulturyi). Moskva: Izdatelskiy dom Vyisshey shkolyi

160

ekonomiki, 2012.

Harris S. E., Soviet Mass Housing and the Communist Way of Life. Indiana university press, 2015.

Herlihy P. The Ethnic Composition of the City of Odessa in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 1997.

Hontar, O.V. Mizh dvoma viynamy (1920–1930). In Ictoriia Odesy.

Odesa: Druk, 2002.

Ikonnikov A.V. Arhitektura goroda. Esteticheskie problemyi kompozitsii.

Moskva: Stroyizdat, 1972.

Ikonnikov A.V. Arhitektura XX veka. Utopii i realnost. Moskva : ProgressTraditsiya, Tom I. 2001.

Ikonnikov A.V. Arhitektura XX veka. Utopii i realnost. Tom II. Moskva : Progress-Traditsiya, 2002.

Ilichev L. F., Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1983.

Inalhan G., Finch E. Place attachment and sense of belonging, Facilities, Vol. 22 No. 5/6, 2004.

Inozemtseva A.S., Mulyar L.H., Piskovskiy Yu.I., Solovev V.P. Zhilischnoe stroitelstvo v Ukrainskoy SSR. Sovremennyiy etap, problemyi, perspektivyi.

Kyiv: Budivelnyik, 1988.

Kalyukin A. Continuities and discontinuities of Russian urban housing: The Soviet housing experiment in historical long-term perspective. Urban Studies Journal 1–18. California: Sage publishing, 2019.

Khan-Magomedov S.O. Khrushchevskii utilitarism: plusy i minusy.

Academia, 2016.

Khrushchev N., Speech at the National Conference of Builders, Architects, Workers in the Construction Materials and Manufacture of Construction

161

and Roads Machinery Industries, and Employees of Design and Research and Development Organizations on the extensive introduction of industrial methods, improving the quality and reducing the cost of construction, December 7, 1954: “On the Extensive Introduction of Industrial Methods, Improving the Quality and Reducing the Cost of Construction,” Amsterdam: Volume 21, 2009.

Kornai J., Economics of Shortage, Contributions to Economic Analysis, Elsevier Science, 1980.

Kostenko S.V. Arhitektura Sovetskoy Ukrainyi 1951-1952. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo literaturyi po stroitelstvu i arhitekture, 1955.

Krivý M. Greyness and colour desires: the chromatic politics of the panelák in late-socialist and post-socialist Czechoslovakia, The Journal of Architecture, 2015.

Martin A. Istoriya prekrasnogo buduschego - Project Russia 25: Microrayon: Post-Soviet Housing Districts, Amsterdam: A-Fond, 2002.

Meerovich M. G. Ot gorodov-sadov k sotsgorodam: osnovnyie arhitekturno-gradostroitelnyie kontseptsii v SSSR (1917- pervaya polovina 1930-h gg.). Nizhniy Novgorod, 2016.

Meerovich M. G., Antonenko N. V. Nachalnyiy etap khrushchevskoy zhilischnoy reformyi v Ukraine na primere zhilogo rayona Cheremushki, g. Odessa. Odesa: Naukoviy vIsnik budIvnitstva, 2018.

Meuser P., Zadorin D. Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing.

Prefabrication in the USSR 1955. Moscow: DOM Publishers, 1991.

Meyerovich M. Nakazaniye zhilishchem: zhilishnaya politika v SSSR kak sredstvo upravleniya lyudmi (1917-1937 gody). Moscow: Rossiiskaya Politicheskaya Entsyklopediya, 2008.

Mezentsev, K., Pidgrushnyi, G., Mezentseva N. Challenges of the PostSoviet Development of Ukraine: Economic Transformations, Demographic Changes and Socio-Spatial Polarization: Understanding geographies of

162

polarization and peripheralization: perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe and beyond, New geographies of Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015 Michelsen C., Weiß D. What Happened to the East German Housing Market? – A Historical Perspective on the Role of Public Funding – IWH Discussion Papers, No. 20, Halle Institute for Economic Research, 2009.

Morklyanik O. I. Formuvannya arhItekturi zhitla v umovah sotsIalnih transformatsIy (na prikladI zhitlovoi arhItekturi Lvova radyanskogo ta postradyanskogo perIodIv). Lviv: NatsIonalniy unIversitet «Lvivska politehnika», 2006.

Mykhnenko, V., Swain, A. Ukraine’s diverging space-economy: The Orange Revolution, post-soviet development models and regional trajectories. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2010 Naumov A.I. Arhitektura Sovetskoy Ukrainyi. 1951-1952. Zhiloy rayon i mikrorayon. Novyie printsipyi planirovki i zastroyki. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo literaturyi po stroitelstvu i arhitekture, 1955.

Nikolskaya E., Nikolskii, M. Kniga o kulture byta. Moscow: Profizdat, 1963.

Novikov A. Krupnoblochnoe Arkhitektura SSSR, 1937.

zhilishchnoe

stroitelstvo,

Moscow:

Reid S. Khrushchev modern. Agency and modernization in the Soviet home, Cahiers du monde russe, 2006.

Richardson T. Kaleidoscopic Odessa: History and Place in Contemporary Ukraine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2008.

Roll G. Country Profiles on Housing and Land Management: Ukraine.

Geneva: United Nations, 2013.

Rudofsky B. Architecture Without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art,

163

1964.

Sennett R., Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation.

Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2012.

Sharapenko V. Nashi gradostroitelnyie zadachi. Moskva: Stroitelstvo i arhitektura, 1964.

Sifneos E. Imperial Odessa: Peoples, Spaces, Identities. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2017.

Soaita A. M., Dewilde C. A Critical-Realist View of Housing Quality within the Post-Communist EU States: Progressing towards a MiddleRange Explanation, Housing, Theory and Society. Colchester: Informa UK Limited, 2019.

Stanko V.N. IstorIya Odesi: Istoriko-kraeznavchI narisi. Odesa : Druk, 2002.

Sýkora L. New Socio-Spatial Formations: Places of Residential Segregation and Separation in Czechia, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 100, no. 4, 2009.

Timofeenko V. I. Odessa: Arhitekturno-istoricheskiy ocherk. Kyiv: BudIvelnik, 1983.

Timofeenko V.I. Odessa. Arhitekturno-istoricheskiy ocherk. Kyiv: Budivelnik, 1984.

Todorova M., Gille Z. Post-Communist Nostalgia. New York: Berghahn Books, 2010.

Varga-Harris C. Homemaking and the Aesthetic and Moral Perimeters of the Soviet Home during the Khrushchev Era: Journal of Social History, Vol. 41, No. 3. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Vert N. Istoriya sovetskogo gosudarstva. 1900—1991. Moskva: Progress: Progress-Akademiya, 1992.

164

Young C., Kaczmarek S. The Socialist Past and Postsocialist Urban Identity in Central and Eastern Europe: The Case of Lodz, Poland, European Urban and Regional Studies, 2008.

Zarecor K. E. Socialist Neighbourhoods after Socialism The Past, Present, and Future of Postwar Housing in the Czech Republic, Iowa State University, 2012.

LIST OF WEB-SITES

All-Ukrainian Population Census, http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/ MinRegion, Passport of the Housing and Communal Sector of Ukraine in 2013, http://www.minregion.gov.ua Moscow Urban Forum: An interview with Rem Koolhas, https:// strelkamag.com/en/article/rem-koolhaas-vladimir-pozner The Village. Khrushchovskiy loft na Solom’yantsI, https://www.thevillage.com.ua/village/service-shopping/apartments/260667-kvartiratizhnya-kiyiv-solom-yanka-slava-balbek Architectural Photobase, https://domofoto.ru/ The Guardian, Moscow’s big move: is this the biggest urban demolition project ever? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/mar/31/moscowbiggest-urban-demolition-project-khrushchevka-flats BBC, Miting protiv renovatsii stal votumom nedoveriya vlastyam Moskvyi https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-39916464 The Guardian, Berlin buys 670 flats on Karl-Marx-Allee from private owner https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/16/berlin-buys-670flats-on-karl-marx-allee-from-private-owner

165