• anugeshtu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Those Khrushchevka etc. apartments weren’t exactly villas, but I agree it’s far better than being homeless or pay most of your income for a somewhat liveable apartment. With the technologies nowadays it could probably be made much better and less depressing.

    • Riverside@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Khrushchyovki were built starting in the 1950s, in a country that 20 years prior had a 90% of starved, uneducated peasant agrarian population. They were kinda small (not smaller than what people in Madrid rent nowadays for 10 times the price though), but they literally had to build a country from scratch: there had been no modern housing prior. England or Germany had a healthy 150 years of industrialization + urbanization at that point, the Soviets had 20 years.

      For most of the history of the USSR, they were building the largest amount of housing of any planet on Earth, smaller housing was preferable to no housing. They literally couldn’t build more, the country ran on full employment, building more housing would have meant reduced doctors, teachers, factory workers or farmers.

      That housing only looks depressing because it’s been ran down after 35 years of negligence in capitalism. As they say, “what communism built capitalism can’t even paint”. The pictures are also often taken in winter with the dead trees and grey dark days.

      That doesn’t look sad or depressing at all to me

      I fully agree that with modern technology we could do absolute wonders and magnificent housing.