That isn’t left wing architecture. It’s USSR architecture. Don’t make everything bad from that dictatorship a part of the left. The Soviet Union wasn’t even real communism. Because communism wouldn’t have a regime consisting of oligarchs and a dictator for example. Just because some people abused something for bad, doesn’t make the thing itself bad.
But these Stalin blocks were actually built an mass to house all the nomads living in the USSR. Most people didn’t have a home, electricity, running water. They used to live in tents. So even though these blocks are ugly and depressing, it made sure people didn’t have to live in a tent with -40°C and Stalin was widely praised for that.
I am a loud critic of the USSR but WW2 destroyed an enormous amount of housing in their country and they spent decades struggling to catch up. Even prior to that, they had WW1 and a civil war negatively impact housing and during the interwar industrialization they focused on increasing industrial output with most home building relegated to cheap temporary construction. A number of the economic issues faced by the USSR were unrelated to any specific political or economic system (for example, the vastness of the country added transportation expenses)
Better than live in ugly apartments than freeze in the harsh Russian winters.
Not completely right. The main reason for panel construction wasn’t war reconstruction, it was rapid industrialization. The USSR in 1929 had 80+% of peasants working the land with a horse or with their hands. By 1970, it was a fully industrialized country with a majority urban population. This required the construction of housing for over a hundred million people over the span of a few decades.
Compare that to England, France, the USA or Germany, which had a few centuries to develop the cities together with their industry since the industrial revolution.
Now compare the housing in the USSR in 1970 with that of Brazil in 1970. The USSR in 1929 was actually less developed than Brazil.
That isn’t left wing architecture. It’s USSR architecture. Don’t make everything bad from that dictatorship a part of the left. The Soviet Union wasn’t even real communism. Because communism wouldn’t have a regime consisting of oligarchs and a dictator for example. Just because some people abused something for bad, doesn’t make the thing itself bad.
But these Stalin blocks were actually built an mass to house all the nomads living in the USSR. Most people didn’t have a home, electricity, running water. They used to live in tents. So even though these blocks are ugly and depressing, it made sure people didn’t have to live in a tent with -40°C and Stalin was widely praised for that.
I am a loud critic of the USSR but WW2 destroyed an enormous amount of housing in their country and they spent decades struggling to catch up. Even prior to that, they had WW1 and a civil war negatively impact housing and during the interwar industrialization they focused on increasing industrial output with most home building relegated to cheap temporary construction. A number of the economic issues faced by the USSR were unrelated to any specific political or economic system (for example, the vastness of the country added transportation expenses)
Better than live in ugly apartments than freeze in the harsh Russian winters.
Not completely right. The main reason for panel construction wasn’t war reconstruction, it was rapid industrialization. The USSR in 1929 had 80+% of peasants working the land with a horse or with their hands. By 1970, it was a fully industrialized country with a majority urban population. This required the construction of housing for over a hundred million people over the span of a few decades.
Compare that to England, France, the USA or Germany, which had a few centuries to develop the cities together with their industry since the industrial revolution.
Now compare the housing in the USSR in 1970 with that of Brazil in 1970. The USSR in 1929 was actually less developed than Brazil.