Professor Mart Kalm: Modernist Mass Housing in the Soviet Union: a Troubled Heritage

Professor Mart Kalm delivered a lecture on 13 May 2008, on the topic of 'Modernist Mass Housing in the Soviet Union'

Event details

Lecture title: Modernist Mass Housing in the Soviet Union: a Troubled Heritage

Date: 13 May 2008, 5.15pm

Venue: Neuroscience Lecture Theatre, 1 George Square, Edinburgh

Lecture abstract

The desire of modern city planners to provide decent housing for all is democratic, egalitarian and is certainly noble minded. Although this aim was achieved in many countries, on the whole it did not give rise to sustainable living environments. The resulting dull uniformly planned cities have been widely criticised and in some cases the negative influence has been two-fold, for example when state housing policy uses new residential areas as a vehicle for colonisation.

Estonia warmly greeted the development of new modern residential areas. During the course of WWII the Soviet Union had occupied Estonia. As a result of the war many of Estonia’s towns were in ruins. With the shortage of accommodation which was intensified by rural people moving to the towns to escape collectivisation and the arrival of Russian immigrants, it was usual for many families to live in one apartment.

Unfortunately a modern apartment in a new apartment block was to remain merely a dream for many Estonians. 1960 to 1980 was a period of rapid industrialisation which required an ever increasing work force. The hordes of Russian speaking immigrants, who moved according to job offers which also provided housing, were relatively indifferent to where they landed. As many apartments as the housing construction factories managed to produce, more or less the same number of new immigrants arrived. The Estonians on the other hand felt resentment towards the privileged immigrants, who immediately received apartments, while they had to wait patiently like second class citizens in their wooden slums for their turn on the waiting list. It is hardly surprising that under the conditions of Soviet occupation this situation increased social stress.

Appreciating the value of this architecture which was a unique result of the two-fold problem of there being a considerable need and few opportunities, is difficult. On account of their massive size it is inconceivable that these areas be treated as monuments, though it should be possible to maintain their architectural unity.