So, no, it’s not anything political. It’s a cultural thing.
Soviet housing either followed or was contemporary with Le Corbusier’s ideas of affordable ‘habitation units’, the now-famous cookie-cutter blocks with minimal decoration. The OOP is quite correct in calling it leftist, since the purpose was to have lots of cheap housing: the USSR had huge expansion of it during the fifties-seventies, with massive migration from rural areas to cities (following the less-neat redistribution of housing, wooden barracks, and communal living in the thirties).
Can’t say I like the outcome too much, because arguably same population density can be achieved with lower-rising houses, since they don’t require huge areas between them to have any sunlight. Khrushchev-era districts can be much cozier than later ones, since five-storey buildings are placed closer and have trees right outside the windows.
It’s also not left wing architecture. It’s the cross roads of a left wing housing initiative, and a right wing refusal to spend money on the public good. What you get is something akin to unsecured prison architecture.
So, again, no. This isn’t an example of left-wing architecture. This makes it an example of bad politics.
Soviet right wing refused to spend money on the public good when building millions of buildings across the country? What in the hell are you talking about?
I already gave a lesson in architectural styles. I don’t feel particularly obligated to educate you in Soviet history, nor to engage in a debate on the subject.
Soviet housing either followed or was contemporary with Le Corbusier’s ideas of affordable ‘habitation units’, the now-famous cookie-cutter blocks with minimal decoration. The OOP is quite correct in calling it leftist, since the purpose was to have lots of cheap housing: the USSR had huge expansion of it during the fifties-seventies, with massive migration from rural areas to cities (following the less-neat redistribution of housing, wooden barracks, and communal living in the thirties).
Can’t say I like the outcome too much, because arguably same population density can be achieved with lower-rising houses, since they don’t require huge areas between them to have any sunlight. Khrushchev-era districts can be much cozier than later ones, since five-storey buildings are placed closer and have trees right outside the windows.
As was aptly, stated by another commenter here:
So, again, no. This isn’t an example of left-wing architecture. This makes it an example of bad politics.
Soviet right wing refused to spend money on the public good when building millions of buildings across the country? What in the hell are you talking about?
I already gave a lesson in architectural styles. I don’t feel particularly obligated to educate you in Soviet history, nor to engage in a debate on the subject.
Indeed, it was already quite clear that you have no idea what you’re speaking of.