“The Irony of Fate” or Living in Faceless Neighbourhoods

“Prospect for Extension”

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the economic collapse of the republics, there were no resources to dismantle the social housing that had already expired. Privatisation of housing caused by the transition from Soviet socialism to the post-Soviet market economy and lack of control allowed the catastrophic adaptation of Khrushovkas, by building extensions.

In my home country, Georgia, as in most other former soviet republics in the 90s, the population arbitrarily began to build extensions to their tiny Khrushovka apartments. Thus, the Soviet architectural ‘masterpiece’ became even more distorted and dangerous. The rent/sell section of newspapers was filled with advertisements that stated, “Khrushovkas with the prospect for extension”. The legislation says: “Construction work is not allowed in multi-apartment residential buildings if: a) their height from the floor to the ceiling is less than 2.7 m,  b) if they do not have an elevator, and c) if the term of exploitation is set to a maximum of 50 years,” but illegal extensions have continued. The governments in Georgia and elsewhere in the former soviet republics have been discussing dismantling the Khrushovkas. Only about three years ago, the so-called “Moscow Renovation Programme”, envisaged the demolition of the first generation Khrushchevkas and the construction of new buildings in their place. The programme affects more than a million people. Soon after the project started, many shortcomings and unanswered questions emerged. The population of Moscow also held a large-scale protest. The questions raised were the following: it was unclear what the word “Khrushchevka” meant because the state was demolishing not only Khrushchevka, but also residential buildings of other periods, including the pre-revolutionary and the so-called “Stalinks”; It was unclear what the word renovation meant in relation to an existing project; Who decided why the existing buildings were not subject to repair; The Mayor of Moscow’s statement that the buildings had expired after 25 years of exploitation – was simply a lie; Part of the population was relocated to the suburbs, and areas that lacked infrastructure; The new apartments provided in exchange to old were of low quality. By strange ‘coincidence’ the buildings near the metro were subject to demolition.

Based on the observation, many renovation programmes have little to do with improving the population’s living conditions. Developers’ business simply grabs new territories – benefiting from their orderly infrastructure and their vicinity to city centres. This way, they create a source of great profit.