ABSTRACT
Multistory mass housing is a global phenomenon that has impacted both the urbanization of developing countries and the re-urbanization or urban renewal of developed countries. The standardization of architecture, however, greatly complicates potential future arguments for historic conservation. The case for preservation of mass housing is essentially the inverse of the traditional case for historic preservation. It is scale and not rarity that creates historic significance. The following chapter examines the legacy of multistory mass housing projects on the current concept of urbanity, with a particular focus on Moscow.
One of the most significant mass housing models of the 20th century was pioneered in Moscow from the 1950s through 1970s. The mass housing model emerged to correct an acute and debilitating housing shortage that had developed during the Stalin era. Soviet planners under Khrushchev drew heavily on architectural models from the constructivist school to design that had been popular during the 1920s and 1930s but were disfavored under Stalin. The result was a unique housing model, referred to as the microrayon, which was a model not only of housing but of social organization. As such, the microrayon profoundly shaped late Soviet society.
The chapter assesses that potential value of conservation of Soviet era housing both due to its historic significance as well as its current importance as a source of affordable housing for Moscow. The Khrushchev-era housing drive can be considered one of the Soviet Union’s most enduring social reforms. Furthermore, the Soviet orientation towards transit, segregation of auto and pedestrian areas, and balance of green space with density all make the Soviet housing model in many ways consistent with 21st-century planning priorities.
The chapter concludes by evaluating strategies that might be used to adapt Soviet era housing to modern conditions while retaining essential features. Adaptation strategies that have been used to preserve and upgrade housing developments in the former East Berlin as well as Riga, Latvia are evaluated as applicable for the Moscow context moving forward.
