🎮Play War Thunder today: wtplay.link/thecoldwarthunder and get your free bonus for registering 🎁a premium tank, aircraft or ship as well as a three-day account boost!
Now in China one with the latest technology as an apartment can be built in less than 7 days. and the majority of Chinese people have 2 apartments or more. weird if it's still there. homeless in the united states
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Wait what? 😂😂 Bro more Chinese people rent by percentage of population than Americans? Meaning fewer people own their own homes… have you ever heard of China’s ghost cities? Where they build entire mega cities and no one lives there because it’s too expensive and too cheaply made. You’re either only seeing pro China sources or you’re a bot
For all the rightful criticism of the units, it always should be remembered that these apartments with electricity, running water, and sewage systems were being provided to a population that lived in rural peasant villages for most of Russias history. It was a grand improvement, especially considering the devastation the USSR suffered during WW2.
@@brutusvonmanhammer true. Though there were millions of average citizens that benefited directly from them. For all of their faults, the USSR did ensure housing wasn’t an issue at least.
@@brutusvonmanhammer this framing of any action the USSR did as malicious in its intent and their citizens as nothing more than prisoners who all hated living there is nothing more than Red Scare propaganda at its most basic and isn’t befitting of a quote on quote history major. Many Soviet citizens liked the USSR. Many Soviet citizens were actually Socialists/Communists. Also, many Soviet citizens did not like the USSR and were not Socialists/Communists. It was complicated and the Soviet Union was very flawed, and how Socialist it was had ALWAYS been a debate on the left. But it was a society, in all its complexity, which in many ways did try and care for its citizens and live up to its ideals, even though it did not always succeed.
@Squared Up explain to me how bringing up the forcible deportation to labor camps and outright murder of hundreds of thousands human beings for the absolute egregious sin of successfully cultivating a tiny piece of land is trolling? Maybe you consider the holodimir to be one of the most ambitious and fascinating achievements of the 20th century?
@@brutusvonmanhammer The holodomor famine even though make Ukraine met with terrible losses wasn't the only famine that happened in that time, in fact there was a widespread famine in the USSR made by unprecedented natural disasters, droughts and made worse by the greed inside some of the people in charge during that time. And it was quickly being resolved by the Soviets within a year actually, with the Collectivism policy then actually bear fruit for the first time and with the extensive help of Soviet agriculture engineer during that year, USSR was able to overcome the famine and had its food supply strengthened as strong as ever, since then never facing any huge shortage of food supplies, way until the Union collapsed in 1991.
After the 1988 Armenia earthquake, Mikail Gorbachev went to inspect and remarked to journalists that he was puzzled why those collapsed apartments were mostly those built during the preceding 10 years and the Khrushcheva’s were mostly still standing.
Even over here in the United States today, you can see a mark in quality and standards in houses built in more recent years than those from the 90s and earlier. Construction of new neighborhoods with shoddy practices, bad quality typify houses today. Problems with the electrical system popping circuit breakers all the time for running every day appliances. Even the drawers in the kitchen were shoddy, having problems opening / closing smoothly. I'd say people, companies used to care for stuff to be sturdy, lasting long, having some sort of standard of quality. Today in the US, you have all these new houses that look nice on the outside, especially in a newly built neighborhood, but the insides of these houses are utter crap. Houses are far more expensive now in America, but the quality has gone down sharply. Americans pay more for less.
@@Warmaker01 The problem is not the construction companies, but lack of them and lack of reasonable competition. It is societies fault, which has scared young people to avoid trades, because its dangerous and underpaid, and "requires less intelligence", since you know - "smart people go to college". No sh.. its dangerous, because construction labour market is filled with people who don't care about work safety and have no discipline, modern slaves, or even criminals that do it as a side hustle. And I am not talking about workers only, it includes construction equipment manufacturers etc.
@@charlesdarwin3124 Uhhh no, Construction is full of hard working Mexicans who are not allowed to take breaks and who constantly pass out from heat exhaustion. It's the fault of the companies.
@@Seth9809 Company is just an empty name to put a blame on. At the heart of the problem is society as a whole and people that work there - everyone - including workers, managers, shareholders etc. Your example of "hard working Mexicans" just proves my point. Who are the people that decide shift duration and disregard safety regulations?
I grew up and still live in Krushchevka near Moscow. The biggest plus is the planning. A well-thought out public transportation, everything (public school, workout space, hospital) is within 5 to 10 minutes of walking distance. But by far the biggest positive aspect are HUGE spaces between the houses filled with parks and greenery, formerly also lots of bird, butterflies and squirrels. Unfortunately now they're gone because of the suicidal lawn "aesthetics", grass trimming and not caring about trees, which is destroying all biodiversity in the city. Krushchevka's blocks are the most eco-friendly urban planning I've ever seen anywhere. I look at the modern city blocks and all I see is steel, concrete and lots of floors, no space between buildings at all, no greenery, only parking lots - a good place to die from despair. Thus the only better alternative to an apartment in a Krushchevka is private house in the modern village.
Does the green space between buildings really make up for the cold aesthetic. I like the buildings that are a naximum of 5 stories tall, built next to each other, and park is down the street(west Europe style).
@@GUITARTIME2024 It absolutely does. It's really depressing to look outside your windows and see other people's windows, concrete walls and cars in all directions. It's much better for mental health and productivity so see birds and greenery at hand's length instead. Leaf wall also helps privacy. But I certainly agree about the height limit.
@@Zwia. They aren't exactly the same. The ones in each block (or several blocks) are ambulatory clinics, without means to house patients. There is usually one or two big hospital per town. The small clinics however have (or, rather, I should say, had) all the usual specialists and are (were) fully staffed. That meant more specialists per capita, meaning less workload, meaning less waiting times and better treatment. Looking at the current healthcare crisis in the US, which beginning in Russia too, having the common cause - too many patients too few doctors because of the "financial optimization" - I can tell that the Soviet system of block clinics was much, much better.
12:41 I love how children breaking windows while playing and some old person shouting at them for that, is common, irrespective of societies and their ideologies.
People might complain about their drabness, but I’d argue it’s preferable to homelessness. Khrushchev was right to prioritize scale over aesthetics at that moment in history, whatever many faults and limitations those apartments had.
I have read that the Budapest metro, to give one example, has become a place where the homeless take shelter. Prior to 1989 there was a housing shortage in Hungary but the metro was not used by the homeless and perhaps there were few if any who were completely homeless.
@@RK-cj4oc your post is a bit grammatically confusing, but I think I follow ? as I understand it (and the vid by CW seems to validate what I was saying), in the case of these apartments the design philosophy was clearly centered on cheapness and scale not any particular decision to choose brutalism over another aesthetic.
fact is, prefab poured cement is cheap as well as brutalist (perhaps one reason why brutalism itself was also a popular aesthetic for nations rebuilding postwar). In any case they also made a legitimate aesthetic choice to create plenty of green space between the drab blocks.
theyre really impressive when you consider how poor the soviet union was at the time. you could double or triple the construction budgets to make them much nicer and they would still be insanely cheap
I have lived in a Khruschevka and I can attest that they are not all that small, certainly bigger than many apartments being built today, soundproofing isnt a big problem only if people are shouting or playing loud music can you hear it in another apartment. In modern apartments the soundproofing is much worse due to walls being much thinner.
They might seem terrible by today's standards but compared to the shared accommodation in barracks, dormitories and communes these wouldve been heavenly. It's not too dissimilar to many post war housing programs in lots of developed western nations, slum clearances of Victorian era tenements being replaced by high rise brutualist tower blocks which are derided today but we're a big improvement
Yes, these apartment buildings look terrible and ugly now. But when they were built it must have seemed like a god send for a family that had been living in a communal dormitory with no privacy at all and no personal rooms. Even if a family of 4 had to live in 2 rooms that would have been better than a shared dormitory.
It was better than what a lot of people have now in the first world. Having to live with parents because the rent is too high in the city. Or house share with strangers, ugh. How awful.
@@akinbodeog nah it’s back b/c of the socialist policies in liberal cities that bog down & disincentivize construction , driving up the prices of existing housing
I live in a classical khrushchovka in East Germany and have done for decades. Some of the points are valid. They are minimalist in design, the material quality is not wonderful (but not really bad either, mine has a B energy score and it's original except for "removable" IR-opaque screens screwed permanently into the original window frames, b/c that's how they do things round here) and the soundproofing, nope, none of that nonsense. But there are far worse places to live. They're small, maybe, but cosy and the floor plans are space-saving and practical with simple things like doors placed at 50 cm from the adjacent wall to leave space for cupboards and stuff behind them without obstruction. Simple build means simple to keep clean, fix and renovate. No bad architectural decisions like garbage chutes or whatever that collect dirt and vermin. Many of these buildings especially in former soviet bloc countries outside Russia have been renovated with insulation panels and a decent paint job, and they look much nicer than most modern blocks IMO.
American apartment complexes are no better than Kchrushevkas.... Most worse due to crime and poverty. I would say 99% of them have energy score of zero
People talk about how they’re shitty now, but yeah, of course they’ve fallen into disrepair. But imagine at the time finally being housed somewhere with water, electricity, stable shelter, close to work, with a community around you. It makes you understand why the population was fine to put up with a lot of the stuff the USSR did, it gave them a better life than the Tsar ever would have.
when those buildings were finished they looked far more decent and cleaner than today. decades of aging and poor maintenance caused these buildings to rot and look like semi-slums.
I work in construction in the UK...I've seen "apartments" built for social housing in big cities that arent much bigger than the designs at @14:12...these were being built in 2019 in Portsmouth, a fairly affluent city. And they didn't get a balcony!
uk average floor area is very small compared to rest of europe, and to the point of being hilarious when compared to north america. my company recently did stairways and cabinets in "micro apartments" here in norway which were about the same size as the average uk housing unit, funnily enough often only 1-2 rooms whereas uk often can fit 3-4 rooms on average with the same space
Portsmouth the 2nd most congested city outside London. (its actually an island) I grew up there 😊. Plenty of failed housing and social projects, sommerstown, the tricorn (actually amazing), portadown Hill (portadown Park huge housing project, demolished quickly after completion), Buckland. New buildings are being thrown up mostly for student accommodation.
I think it's probably a stretch to call Portsmouth an affluent city - but it's not without its charms. My earliest memories are of growing-up in Southsea. For 50 years my aunt had a flat on the very top floor of Seaward Towers (amazing view of the harbour, Old Portsmouth, and the Solent....) in Gosport (one of the 2 1960s tower blocks overlooking Portsmouth harbour). Back in those days (when we had a Navy) there was much more hustle and bustle about the place - streams of cars and bicycles coming out of Portsmouth dockyard at the end of the working day..... Norway doesn't have the population density problem that the UK has, but also Scandinavians enjoy a much higher/better standard of living than those in the UK (and many other Europeans) do. Norway's sovereign wealth fund is the largest in the world, which safeguards Norwegians' pensions, and, considering its tiny population, it holds a ridiculously high percentage of most of the world's listed companies - amazing for a country of only 5.5 million people.
Very basic housing should be free, as well as very basic food. Even if it's just a one bedroom small apartment stocked with ramen noodles and potatoes 👍
Imagine a politician today vowing to house his entire countries population in 15 years and in the process creating 400 factories and mostly being successful
"Small flats" I live in Poland and PRL (times before falling of pro-russia government) flats are bigger then current new flats which are smaller and smaller and expensive every day.
I lived in some of these in Russia in the recent past. Gotta say, not too bad. It IS weird to be in your friend's unit and realize it's truly identical to your place from two years back. It genuinely fucks with your sense of memory.
@@ghostsethrich7306 Kruschev apartments did not have elevators. You either stayed in Brezhnev apartment or Stalinka. Or a Krushchev apartment that was remodeled.
I lived in one when i was in Slovakia, mine was modernized with a nice coat of paint, new doors, windows, pipes and insulation however, you have the sound insulation wrong, those things are solid concrete, they have excellent sound proofing and overall, if they are space efficiently designed apartments i find them cheaper, cozier and far more affordable than any cheap ass shitty equivalent built by the lowest bidder today.
the quality of these buildings variet greatly between one Republic and the other. Don't assume that your anecdotal evidence of this kind of house in Slovakia means he is "wrong"
Great. I lived in Moscow for 6 years until 2020 and always wondered about more detail on these units. Though now it seems the city of Moscow is trying to get rid of these and develop their land with higher priced buildings, which is upsetting many of the current owners who feel they are not being compensated for them and that the rules for this process are wholly unfair.
@@Tadesan While i'm certain they are making several milions of dollars on each building by selling flats, the compensation is more or less fair I guess. My family got a renovated 73 sq m apartment with instead of 56 previously owned (17 sq m are worth 20 thousand USD).
In East Germany (the GDR), the urban reconstruction after the war was partially done in a similar way to the "people's construction" mentioned in the video. My grandmother still lives in one of these apartment buildings build in the 1950s. (Most of the houses were of a bit higher quality than the Kruzhchevkas though, with wooden roof beams and traditional triangular roofs with ceramic tiles, but otherwise relatively similar in size. While the apartments were bigger, the earlier new-build houses often had no central heating and the people had to use big ceramic-tile coal ovens. Most of them continued to be used until 1990. It was only later that the GDR adopted the typical concrete modular building method, but then the buildings were more similar to the ones build under Brezhnev in the USSR and build almost exclusively by the state. An earlier example of this, although still in the shape of stalinist architecture (socialistic classicism), was the famous "Stalinallee" in Berlin, now named Karl-Marx-Allee. It was a massive prestige project, but it indirectly caused the the great people's uprising in the GDR in 1953. Btw: In France, there was a form of voluntary house-building cooperatives too after the war: the so called "castors autocontstructeurs" ("self-building beavers").
The East Berlin apartments were huge when I lived there, and many still have the coal ovens which will come in handy this winter with the energy crisis.
For all the faults pointed out looking back with a modern western perspective, aren't these blocks a wild success? Seems better then what there was before, and they solved housing after a decimated world war. I am from the Netherlands, and I wish we would step away from the whole 'the market will provide' when we are in the middle of a giant housing crisis. Housing should be a right, a first. It shouldn't be a commodity to be speculated on.
Well.. lets put your population into poverty then give a few of them some crappy cramped apartments in exchange for the life spent at hard work and call it the victory of socialism. Great. and by the way soviets didn't solve housing problem. By the end of the USSR half of the population still lived in barracks, factory dormitories or so called 'communist apartments'.
Just because there are massive problems in the current state of things (and housing is a problem everywhere, Canada just banned foreign investors for 2 years) it doesn't mean that anyone should be praising something that failed so miserably in the USSR. There are other ways.
There are still Khruschevkas across Russia. In Moscow they tend to be 5-floor blocks characterised by tiny kitchens and bathrooms - with no lifts in the buildings. There's currently a huge redevelopment programme in the Russian capital which involves tearing down the Khruschevka blocks (and older apartment buildings) and replacing them with modern high-rise buildings. Many of the Stalin-era apartment buildings are quite sought-after places to live, often characterised by large windows, high ceilings and more living space. Some of the old Stalin-era towers have really impressive architecture.
@@ofHerWord For the last 7 years I've lived in a modern housing complex about 10km (7 miles) south-east of the centre of Moscow - there is a Khruschevka block outside my kitchen window - 150 metres (500 ft) from my building..... My building has 18 floors and contains c.145 apartments of varying sizes: studio flats up to 3 bedroom apartments. On my floor live a retired couple, a policeman and his family, a young couple just starting a family, a husband and wife with 2 very young children, and another family with teenage children. There are people living off the state pension in the building, first-time renters, first-time buyers through to some residents who are met outside the building each morning by a chauffeur-driven Mercedes S-class or Bentley.... but everyone gets on with each other. I'm not claiming that Russia is some sort of utopia (the country, like any, is not without its own particular problems and challenges) but the big cities in the UK, Europe and US (in particular) could learn a lot because some of the social problems (that are particularly associated with the US) barely exist (in some instances don't exist at all) here - which in Moscow, a city of some 12-15 million people, is quite incredible really.
@@jagdpanther2224 The same could be said of Russian/Soviet apartment blocks built well-after Khruschev's time. The modular design/concrete construction (panel houses) continued from the 1950s probably until after the Soviet Union collapsed.....
I have nothing but respect for the incredible research that was done to make this video. I'm truly impressed by the extraordinary specificity, facts, and interesting history of Soviet housing that you all managed to provide for us in an entertaining and easily digestible video. Fantastic work!
A lot of them are nicer than places I lived in the US. Also interesting that a lot of Soviet era buildings and facilities are still in use. In the US, buildings have either been torn down, abandoned to the elements, or "upgraded" and made unaffordable. Meanwhile thousands of people die every year because they sleep outside.
Post soviet nations only barely hang on because of soviet-era infastructure, transport, and militaries. 30 years since capitalism and these nations still havent gotten better. 30 years of communism and these nations became space faring superpowers all while defeating fascist hordes on their doorstep. Funny...
The people sleeping outside are almost always drug addicts who don't have homes because they're constantly high on meth or opioids, people who are extremely mentally ill, or both at once. The facet of homelessness you describe is entirely a mental health and substance abuse issue, not a matter of there being too few roofs to sleep under. Also I've seen many efficient housing complexes that are twice as old as most of the soviet era buildings you're talking about, right here in the US, and I've seen them in great abundance, depending on the area.
It was amazing program which immensely raised quality of living of millions of people. Any criticism is misguided as any project is full of errors or flawed in some way. People who disagree, need to live in a collective unit for an year and come with a fresh perspective. Beggars can't be choosers, with any better building, waiting list would significantly lengthen.
@@fridge6668 They were incredibly poor before communism and then two world wars happened. One which completely devastated nation. You are childishly bias.
This is actually a pretty good achievement. Housing all those people in relative decent conditions all while dealing with an exploding population. In comparison when for example england went from a feudal society into the industrial revolution people also lived with a dozen people in small single rooms or wooden shacks at the edge of cities. Human waste running down the streets. Bathing was done in a tub in the room and privacy was non existent. People seem to forget that russia was still a non industrialised society 100 years ago. Pretty much what the rest of europe was a couple of centuries prior. They made huge steps in a few very short decades.
don't compare them to the western social housing, because in the west those projects were intended for the marginalized poor while in the USSR they were intended for the most productive and successful part of the soviet society.
They industrialised much faster than the west because the west had to invent everything first, for instance the first Russian mass produced tractor was a copy of a Fordson.
the industrial revolution in England happened 150 years before the housing projects described here, so the technology was less developed so it's not really a fair comparison
Ok, saying this as someone who is from post-soviet satellite country (central Europe, not USSR) and lived my first ~20 years in one of these standardized concrete block apartment buildings and also lived in west for a few years later I would like to say a few points: 1) The flat layouts presented here are the worst flats deployed to poorest regions, in major cities there were 2 or 3 bedroom flats as majority of flats. I for example lived in 950 square feet / 85 meter square 3 bedroom one. Toilet and bathroom separate rooms and elevator was in all houses larger than 4 floors. Constructed in 1979. 2) Our building was 7 floors high and constructed from the standardized concrete panels that were 25cm / 10inches thick, hearing neighbors was never an issue. This was better than some of the western apartments I lived in the west where sometimes the developer used plasterboard as non-structural walls between residents! And not even in some student / slums, but middle class family housing. 3) Since my home country joined EU there was much effort to make these buildings energy efficient and what was surprisingly successful thanks to their similarity and modular construction they went through successful exchanges of interior utilities (water, heating, electricity, gas) and in my city thanks to government helping with financing vast majority these old buildings have now 20-30 cm (10 inches) of new isolation applied on their external walls and windows exchanged that government mandated with minimum thermal isolation features to be eligible to the grant money. My point here is that their old simplistic design was actually making these transitions much more cost efficient compared what the newer buildings where investor/developer is actually cheaping out on quality standards even more than communists were in the past. Remember kids, communists were bad, but without vigilant electorate the greedy capitalists that replaced them can produce even worse results for the average person trying to buy a place to live.
The moral of the story is that large blocks of flats are always, always an unhuman way to live. Nobody would choose that way of life if they had an alternative, by which I mean a house with a garden.
@@Hereford1642 Nope, sorry but simply no. The modern car dominant suburbs is my view a completely antisocial dead end of urbanism. I am still a city person and more importantly an European city person as even with the socialist past, those housing neighborhoods provided great social services, there was enough green parks for kids between every second pair of buildings. Only in western movies always when there is a view on these old socialist apartment blocks they take away color to make them scary for western audiences. I for example still loved about my old city that I never needed a car. A tram or a trolley bus was scheduled every 5 minutes on lines criss-crossing the city. Grocery shop, park my kindergarden and elementary school was in walking distance for me and for everybody (since the density made it economical that schools were also close). I do not want to put here exactly my parents house but let's say this is google streets view of my block. Navigate the area a little or go to 3D map above. This is better side of socialist urbanism of 1970s on the positive side of the spectrum, just all the buildings have a new colorful coat as they were isolated. Yes you can see on the road patches that there is less public money on infrastructure as we are not yet a rich country, but I hope you would agree this is far away from the stereotype that you might have about communistic buildings and cities that have them. www.google.com/maps/@48.1564799,17.1708677,3a,75y,244.2h,87.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8fQ7QcWaMynXxsD8e1eAQw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
@@networkgeekstuff9090 I can understand why countries went for these constructions but they are still bad and very few like them. Why do you think that they are not being built any more? I don't know what more to say. Nobody wants them except desperate people in cities.
Say what you will about these places (my aunt lives in a lakotelep to this day- it’s a housing project) it reduced homelessness to next to zero. It’s taboo to say this in the USA but east European communism did a lot of day to day stuff better than the United States.
@@snowflakemelter1172 it was illegal to have no registration. it's different. if you cant get a registration you will be just forced out of any large city.
Yes totalitarian states did have better records on social issues, crime and antisocial behaviour is difficult when you have 90,000 Stasi, 170,000 informers and the state cannot be investigated or challenged.
@@snowflakemelter1172 the funny thing is that they did not. Black market was florishing both in USSR and DDR. When the state is more concerned about some dissident they don't care about regular criminals. Even more. Sometimes they used their services
My grandparents in the Czech Republic participated in building their apartment block on the basis of the Peoples' construction. A family unit needed to collectively put in 2000 hours of work on the project, whether burning or laying bricks, moving material, painting the walls, etc., to be granted an apartment - if you didn't make those 2000 hours, you needed to pay the difference based on the hourly work pay at the construction establishement. My grandparents worked almost every day couple hours after work and live in their magnificent 3 room, kitchen, bathroom, toilet, balcony and large store room apartment with a basement to this day. If you calculate it, were you to put in 2 hours after work each day, splitting the difference with more time on the weekends and no time on sick or vacation days, you could get your own apartment in 1000 days, e.g. less than 3 years. Absolutely remarkable system.
If only they had not sacrificed beauty to productivity. Beauty would have added maybe another 20% (wild guess) to the original price but the current generation would look at the result in an entirely different way. People would be nostalgic for a system that produced something to be proud of rather than seeing them as awful ugly blisters on the landscape. I live on the edge of a modern posh housing estate built on the site of a Victorian mental hospital just outside a city on the welsh borders of England. I bought the old Victorian mortuary at auction and there I live while the hospital buildings have almost all been demolished and replaced with housing which although large and expensive looks like it was designed by a child with a lego set. They are far too expensive for the workers to dream of buying themselves. Beauty has again been sacrificed but this time, not so much for productivity but for profit (interchangeable somewhat). With their gardens these buildings will never be the complete eyesores that brutalism achieved but at the same time have been built cheaply and quickly such that they will not stand the test of time and will inevitably become uglier and not more beautiful with time.
@@Hereford1642 But Soviet economic didn't work like that. You only have so much money and labor. 20% more beautiful means people have to work harder and longer to afford them. I wish the Soviet system had been more flexible.
I fucking love Khrushchev. I truly believe he was the last true socialist leader who really believed the system was there to help "The People" and tried to make it work for the citizens of the Soviet Union. Deserves more credit IMO. Not to say he was an angel or anything.
Well.. lets put your population into poverty then give a few of them some crappy cramped apartments in exchange for the life spent at hard work and call it the victory of socialism.
From my layperson-interested perspective, I completely agree with you. I much prefer the attitude of 'we're all in this together' rather than 'every man for himself', especially when it comes to unearned generational wealth perpetuating inequality.
I rented 2 room apartment in brick (brick > panel) built Khrushevka in Moscow. 45m2. Sound isolation was not great, but ok. Smell isolation was good. For 1 young person or a young couple it was a good solution as a start. Costed us 40k rubles or 570 $ (old exchange rate) plus utilities. Best thing is not the Khrushevka building but Khrushevka microdistrict as a whole - metro station, bus station, grocery, drug store, kindergarden, school, clinic, kids playground, outdoor gym with footbal field and tennis court, small park, even small local theater where student actors perform - all of this in 5-10 minute walk. And it is not a modern microdistrict. It was built and designed that way during Khrushev times.
@@scrooge1374 It's like that here in the UK. We don't have zoning, everything is mixed. Housing estates have shops, pubs, schools, doctors, pharmacies etc within walking distance. Public transportation is good (sometimes excellent). I think it is the same across Europe. I'm 56, and I've never owned a car, I've never needed one.
All urban apartments have that. NY apartment have subways and buses everywhere. You are comparing suburbs to urban and saying this is better Show shall list is not smart.
My first apartment in Russia was a small Khrushchev era apartment, 9th floor with a loose fitting balcony which was precariously attached to the building, $96 per month, I would estimate 35-40sq/m; my next place was a much older/nicer Stalinist building thicker walls, better insulated, quieter, warmer and overall a better build quality (roughly 60sq/m) $112 rental per month.
Soviet housing practices have been very interesting to me ever since I found out just how much more efficient they are than modern American housing practices, and even more so when I checked out a few of them and realized most of the space complaints were older people feeling entitled. Even the really small ones are bigger than my dorm, and I have two roommates.
Yet he is despised by many people on the far left who feel he betrayed the Communist cause with his Secret Speech and admission of Stalins atrocities. It really shows you the true mindset of the radical left.
My maternal great grandfather lived in Khurshevka. It had some pecularities such as tiny room with a bed (and nothing else) or foldable furniture at places. It was similar in all Eastern Bloc appartments in concrete blocks of flats with 45 m^2 to 65 m^2. Back then it was supposed to be a stopgap measure, a temporary housing until bigger accomodations could be built. In the early 1990s the first Czech president Havel called them a rabbit-hutch, but 30 years later they made a return in a sense. There is less concrete, but the new buildings have poor accustic isolation, weird floorplans (closet room, really?) and most of these flats aren't bigger than 50 m^2, yet most people can't afford them even if the central bank lessens their mortgage criteria (which often don't make sense at second glance). At least in the cities and towns, long-distance commuting could be still an option. The cooperative housing is also making a return in my country, with some inspiration taken from Austria.
Because the cities are over built and it is difficult to build. Traffic, cost of land, cost of workers is too much, and show shall list EU regulations. But like you said you can commute get a proper house.
13:53 Furniture moved in through balconies ... That is exactly how it is done in South Korea, a nation of high rise apartments. Specialized moving trucks with mobile ramp elevators move stuff up up up and through the balconies.
For all of the detractors, these apartments have an almost extreme sense of durability and are not at all shabby. I lived in one for nearly two years and, though quality does leave something to be desired, they are more than reasonable in my opinion.
Actually, khruschevkas were and still continue to be an advantage, a sort of social housing estate absolutely comfortable and cosy inside but simple and not being stylish by exterior for no need... In Spain, as an example, there is a lot of khruschevka-like estate where many families of low to middle outcome are happy to live.
This was a remarkable achievement. Many of these buildings are still standing. I’ve been in some of them. When I lived in Moscow, we would combine 2-3 of these into a western-sized apartment.
That's a profound and professional level, all is correct. Still there was nothing mentioned about private houses which were widely spread in rural regions and in suburbs of towns. It was never banned but moreover encouraged to take a piece of land and to build a house on your own, even loan programs were proposed, note that they were almost for free, and you were even payed back for your own work on the construction of your house!
I love commie blocks, my uncle lives in one and the elevator is the size of two people and has a frame of stalin on the back wall. Perhaps not everyone who lives in them are happy with the arrangement but my uncle seems fine with it.
Bertrand Russell, in a 1950 essay, wrote that there was such a severe housing shortage that if a single woman got pregnant, several men claimed to be the father so they could get their own apartment, and not live with parents.
@@mykolatkachuk7770 You're just a pathetic anti-soviet fan boy mad in youtube comments that ppl are sharing positive experiences contrary to your stupid capitalist psychopathy.
@@mykolatkachuk7770 Nah. My family lived in both the HPR and USSR. The USSR most definitely wasn't facsist, as facism requires private control of industry. It also didn't "oppress the people", most of that is either exaggerated instances or outright fabrications from the West.
And now, all these decades later, these buildings once built with pride are being blown apart by those same shells made by the same generation, so suddenly long ago.
Governments should do something similar again and solve the housing problems worldwide. Of course with better isolation and modern technology. But cheaper housing is still needed all over the world.
It is governments that have caused the housing shortages. With their homes should save the environment and other such nun cens. Government should bott out, that is what is best. A bunch of college boys can't build better than the professionals.
Hungary is still full of these old 'panel' blocks, as we call them. There was a huge program to modernize them a few years ago. Doors, windows replaced, insulation on the outer walls, rebuilt central heating systems, etc. Paid by a mixture of government found, EU money and flat owner money/bank loans. They are better now, but it's still 'just a panel'...
I am staying in one now, and I must say thought they are very similar in design and layouts to Russian khrushevkas, where I grew up, they are way better in terms of kitchen and bathroom size and sound insulation.
@@boredhuman9289 What remained, is mostly 1970's, early 80's designed and built, not the original 50's concept. As living standards improved, and expectations got higher, the problems became obvious soon enough, so improvement was made. Not to shun the original concept, it was a great idea and a certain improvement at the time, compared to what was available before. But times moved forward.
I used to hate Khrushchevkas, but compared to the modern 'Putinkas' going up in Moscow (built by PIK and other construction mafias under the so-called renovation program), Khrushchevkas are simply wonderful -lowrise, surrounded by greenery, decently built, etc. Putinkas are built mostly by underpaid laborers from Central Asia, are very low quality, and involve razing of entire neighborhoods, including greenery, to put up monotonous multicolored blocs 4-5 times as high as the 4-5 story Khrushchevkas. They are leading to the ghettoization of Moscow, its suburbs, and any other area unfortunate enough to know them.
Nowadays, these bad and ugly "Khrushchevkas" cost tens thousands of dollars (about $60 000). In post-soviet countries $600 salary is very good one and desirable. If you safe the full salary every month, it takes 100 months or more than 8 years to raise the money. In real life, you have expenses (food, water, rent, utilities), so you can save up $150-200 monthly. So after 25 years you can indulge yourself with one "Khrushchevka". "Khrushchevkas" are definitely budget apartments. So, compare them with budget households in your country.
While our place in Soviet Estonia had wood burning stoves, no hot water or even an own bathroom. Communal toilet in the hallway and a cold water tap in the kitchen. Could have been worse- a friends place only had taps in corridors so they brought water in by buckets.
In 2003, in Yekaterinburg Russia (3rd largest city), my unsuccessful search for the birth mother of my nephew brought me into a collapsing communal residence. Rooms had a twin bed, one window,a small table and chair. In America people complain about ‘run-down’ housing which, in comparison with all modern conveniences, would be considered to be ‘palatial’.
@@Titonka447 American housing is often falling apart/insect ridden after forty years so what looks good is lousy to live in. Only recently discovered insulation.
@@Titonka447 *LOL Another Western dreamer, I live in Yekaterinburg, and if we compare Yekaterinburg and New York, then the communal living conditions in the USA in 2012 can be equated to the USSR after the war! :-)* th-cam.com/video/jACXZhHCQdc/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%95%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3 th-cam.com/video/ZHCvrnWsSiM/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%95%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3
The people's construction thing is what my grandparents did. Originally they lived in one of those khruschevkas, but a new construction of a more modern building started and they participated. Scored a three room apartment. It was a family of four at the time and that apartment was actually pretty decent. Managed to have good neighbors and the building and its surroundings were quite clean. I subsequently grew up in it, but had pletny of friends who lived in khruschevkas. As a kid, I could not understand how one could live in those, but our friends were pretty content. And fun fact about khruschevkas: the original architect for them was the grandfather of one russian rock star. Lagutenko.
I often visited friends in Baku, Azerbaijan, and they lived in a neighborhood of Russian style apartments--3, 4, or 5 story buildings. There were lots of trees and playgrounds, and the neighborhoods had small markets. Actually very nice.
Yugoslavia had a similar system, but in the socialist Croatia mega-companies, companies and unions mostly built for their own workers. It meant, if the company was bigger and had more cash, it builded better flats for their workers. My late gradmother payed her appartment twice! First time, the person, a representive of the Teacher's union, who was building the appartements in the posh part of Zagreb sold them to other people for nice little amount cash and and much more important political favours. He went to prison for a one year (senteced to 10 year, but as he was a partisan veteran, they got him out), but his grandchildren probably enjoy the fruits of his criminal enterprise. Second time, my gradmother payed for a sophisticated Yugoslav version of Hruscovka (35 m2) which actually survived the earthquakes that hit Zagreb not so far ago. All the time, the decent socialist workers and decent communists steal whatever they could in the process. Got to love Titoism, a fancy name for all around Yugoslav kleptomania. Lost 45 years of corruption, bad national relations that ended up in a crazy bloodshed, while let's say Austrians or Danes were having natural development.
I grew up in colonial Hong Kong under British rule. Such apartments would have been our dream home. We were a family of 6 and our private area was plywood partitioned 8ft x 8ft space. We shared a communal sitting area, kitchen, and bathroom with 4 to 5 other families thus we had a spitoon our private area to "do our business" if the bathroom were busy. There are/flaws with communism but it was better than being a British colony.
It is very sad to contemplate the early paintings of Hong Kong harbour and compare with what it is now. You seem to be describing a time somewhere between the low level original and the high rise concrete and steel jungle it has become. I was flown there a few years ago to do some specialist technical work and was fairly shocked by how bladerunner it seemed to be. No star in Britains crown for sure but it seems like China is trying to emulate it as fast as it can.
@@atomicshadowman9143 It was both. HK is obviously a crowded place but the British ruled it with very little consideration for the average citizen. Racism was common and in the open so I think that it impacted how they ruled HK. There was zero social safety net and close to no social services, not even public education. It was nothing like the Uk in the same time period. We moved from HK to Manhattan and the living conditions were exponentially better so I think the government policies affects it.
The Btitish didn't force that on you it was already the culture and lifestyle of the region to live in tiny spaces, much like modern day Japan. The British just ruled what was there already.
The Soviet Union did a better job in regard to urban planning than in the west. All of the urban apartments in the UK we're poorly built and had a lack of amenities. The Soviet stuff is still going strong, all of the apartments built in the 60s 70s in the UK are being demolished. Who builds housing without shops nursery schools doctors the UK did, the USSR gave its citizens that all within sensible walking distance
It was back in the early 90s that I was in Russia, I was in Moscow and then Yekaterinburg, and I loved living there, The homes Flats or apartments were warm and dry and I found them to be comfortable. despite the propaganda, I had heard living in the UK about how awful the SU was and the homes were a vast improvement from what I had been living in. I had been living in Hulme Manchester in one of the bull rings, Jon Nash Cresent. I was overrun by cockroaches, some of the internal walls sot of just hung in the air with the internal bolts supporting them. There was a lot of crime in the area mostly muggings, This area also had many students from Manchester University, I suppose they just endured this as they could go home when the holidays came around, They also knew that they did not have to remain trapped there once they had their desired degree and could leave never to return. The cost of heating these flats was very hard, and due to the curved design everything was curved, this made it costly to buy carpets as carets are straight and so you had to buy more than you needed. OK back to Russia, where I found that heating was not a case of my turning on the heat, this was sent to the flats I am not sure from where maybe from power stations, It was all very clever and very nice. As for countries I have in my heart my love for Ireland and for Russia, my love for the UK is also there, OH a lot of people in the cities also have country houses, These are like what you see if you watch fiddler on the roof.
Yes, the constant bashing of Stalinist block housing is the utmost hypocrisy, this guy from the West even mentioned inequality in Soviet housing with a straight fucking face! We have homeless encampments all over the place, the mental gymnastics required to criticize the USSR from the RIGHT!
You're so right. I was one of those students in Manchester and I remember having to sleep in my gloves and hat because the insulation was so poor even with radiator blasting. I would always rush to go home to Slovakia for any holidays and didn't bother to come back for school until October. Lol
My grandma and grandpa received a three room apartment in khrushchevka in 1970 from the hospital where they worked at. But before that, she and my grandpa had to live in aroom in a building of the hospital's archive for two years. My other grandma and grandpa have lived for four years until they got four room apartment from grandpa's workplace in 1969. I think in case of my family their waiting period for apartment was relatively short
A little bit of observations: Projects of apartment blocks built same year may differ significantly even in one city. I grew up in a brezhnevka built in 1981 and apartment has no issues with sound insulation and size of a kitchen. Another nice thing about my specific building is good thermal insulation. In my region temperatures can reach 35-40 degrees in summer and -20 in winter, but the temperature inside is ≈24 degrees around the year. At the same time, my friend who lives in another brezhnevka nearby, truly suffers from bad sound insulation and heat in summer
i am an expat in a post Soviet country and living in a 5 store apartment built in 1965. As he said, these apartments are small and designed not to stay in and do the housework. The kitchen is very small, basically not existing ( people were apparently eating out on those days, and kitchens were seen as unnecessary by Soviet authority). The design of the apartment is clearly meant to be practical without anything that has no purpose. However we are talking about 60 years ago. These apartments had central heating, central cold and hot water, which were considered luxury in all countries on the earth except the richest countries, and still are considered luxury maybe in half of the world. And finally i would be happy to live in a newly built apartment with exact same design and facilities.
me too. I don't need much space, if I'm at home I'm either sleeping or gaming, both of which don't need a lot of room. plus, I like the idea that each little block has close access to the necessities, making it unnecessary to go very far from home.
@@shauncameron8390 Although I am referring to the generally bleak appearance of the housing, I was referring specifically to the Kruschevka! Having traveled the world and the US, I have only seen this particular type of architecture in a small # of European countries(most, in fact all, in the "formerly" communist Eastern European geographical zone, for lack of a better term.
I have one - a small room with an attached bathroom. It functions like a studio apartment. Not exactly big on space but at least I have a place to stay which is better than living on the streets.
I remember reading once that as a result of an earthquake in Soviet Central Asia sometime in the 1970s, buildings in general and housing specifically that were constructed during Khrushchev's reign survived far better than those built during the sclerotic rule of Brezhnev.
Probably because they were shorter. Shorter buildings (even ones that aren't built to the highest standards) are more resistant to earthquakes than tall buildings. It's why so many areas on fault lines ban all buildings over a certain height unless they're directly approved by the highest authorities.
Instead it's all fake "luxury" as far as the eye can see that just perpetuates poverty, making public transit a nuisance as a result. Higher density unattainable dogshit that offers neither the car-centered freedoms of the past nor the urbanism of the future. Just the worst of both worlds.
I am delighted, and also flat-out astonished, to find so many people praising this community-focused 'equality for all' project, despite its flaws. This is very refreshing. In the US the attitude seems to be that if you're homeless it's your own fault because you're too lazy, and if you have a big fancy house it's because you deserve it and worked harder than everyone else, even though it is basically always unearned generational wealth that has faciliated such a quality of life.
Being Homeless is horrible. These apartments were built to give shelter with heat, food storage, electricity, running water, and sewage. And that's what they did and still are doing today.
@@Skullnaught Yeap, absolutely. A bunch of commies and others with a mission of division have infiltrated parts of society, using legitimate grievances to turn people against their fellow person. It's effective for now, unfortunately. I think the best antidote is to call it out with respect. I think we need to have more compassion as individuals and address the shortcomings in our society that these commies prey upon, or else they will continue to have some success.
There's an awesome video about the urban planning of the Soviet Union. It's more about the urban planning than History, though. It from a channel about urban planning, btw. Nice video, Mr. Cold! When will you start selling The Cold War beer - best served .... cold! Khrushchev graduated in Engineering on the first classes of the Bolshevik Universities. The world would be quite different if he managed to introduce prices in the Soviet production system.
I was in the USSR in 1981. Our tour guide was a guy our age. He pointed out the Khrushchev "slums" around the city. What Khrushchev did was remove the elevators. That made the apartments just that much bigger. So you had to walk up flights of stairs. People tended to want the one's with the elevators.
Early hruscovkas are not too bad as they were made of bricks, quite thick outer walls, and depending on the actual project (There are hundreds of variations for building, they might look the same, but they are not on the inside planning) you might have load-bearing walls with some or all neighbors in that case sound isolation is not actually bad. Most new affordable! houses have worse sound isolation due to the usage of thin walls mostly made of drywall. I still live and bought an apartment in brick hruscovka, ones from concrete panels are a bit different story, but in general pros: 1) Hruscovckas are affordable nowadays !!! 2) 2-room apartments are 40-45 square meters, its OK amount of living space in city and definitely better than a studio apartment. !!! 3) Location within big cities often is good 4) Lot of spacing between buildings with trees and grass 5) Brick ones are actually not a bad quality in general, the ones that had problems have shown them already - just avoid such buildings. !! 6) Both pro and a con - often apartments are sold not renovated, but a lot cheaper, so you can change windows and do renovations the way you like it. 7) If the building is renovated it also has good insulation, plus it also do not look too bad. 8) Most of the walls within the apartment are not load-bearing so planning often can be modernized and quite easily legalized Cons: 1) Pipes and electricity are in bad condition (Usually they are at least partially renewed) 2) Top-floor apartments might have issues with roof leaking at some point 3) Population within the house is often older people or people who do not have funds or will to invest in renovation !!! (This is one of the major downsides for me personally) 4) For bigger families space might not be sufficient as they are mostly up to 50 square meters (3 room apartment) 5) Balcony in all of them is in very bad condition - pretty much unusable. 6) Some of them are on rented land (After collapsing of USSR some people recovered their land just to see that now there are soviet blocks built on them) so you might need to pay small rent as buying out land is hard often. 7) Stairways and outside often look run down 8) No elevators 9) Basement storage is not suitable for storing anything (Very humid) or often is nonexistent. 10) Panel ones unless renovated are often no go for buying, but might be ok for temporary renting. 11) 2.5 meter ceilings, sometimes less. 12) Some issues with ventilation as it is only in the kitchen and bathroom. 13) Rooms often are not isolated, meaning you need to walk through one room to access another one. 14) If not renovated roof material might be asbestos 15) Some flats might have unapproved planning - walled-in balconys (almost impossible to legalize); Touched load bearing walls (Also almost impossible to legalize); Changed planning (If intact load-bearing walls just some extra costs) It might seem more cons than pros, but most of the cons are building specific or not a huge deal in general for me personally.
At 6:50, you had mentioned something about "70M square meters affecting 25M people." This means that everyone gets only ~3 square meters, which is only around 30 square feet person. This is barely more than 5.5 feet by 5.5 feet. Nobody can live in an area that small.
And yet people did for decades. A whole family would live in a tiny room with a communal kitchen and bathroom. It was still better for an individual to have own tiny room than to live on the street.
YA-A-A-A-A-AY!!! FINALLY, SOMEONE WHO CORRECTLY PRONOUNCES NIKITA'S LAST NAME! "KHROO-shyov," not "KROO-shehv"! I'm so very happy now! YA-A-A-A-A-AY!!!
You will continue to wait for your Khrushchovka until your name appears at the top of your workplaces list. Unless you are willing to offer a small bribe of some sort...
Great Docs, but may I give you a touch of audio advice… your dual microphone setup is causing a fair bit of phasing, especially when speaking with more energy. You may notice this a a hollowness in the high mid and added sharpness in the hi end.. long story short, use just one mic track and try doubling it with a slight touch of delay or echo. You will find you will still obtain the fullness and wide sound stage that you desire without the harsh high end notes… cheers!
Like many Americans, I was brought up to see Khrushchev as a "bad guy". What a surprise to find out he was actually a hero. After the murderous regime of Stalin, Nikita looked pretty good.
Thank you for this..it's very timely, because in this country we're having a severe crisis of not only a lack of housing but of unaffordability of those that exists. The government's late and feeble response to this crisis is a little more than lip service.
Gosh, if enough houses are handed out the house prices won't go up, how can you do that? ! you lunatic! In this way, taxes and corporate profits will decline! economy will collapse! （owo）
Don’t limit your understanding of public housing to the US experience which is concentrating poor minorities into high rise complexes. Look to Singapore and Austria for good public housing policy. The Soviet Union was probably not bad considering where they were starting from. I would say that even the US cases are not that bad, I mean compared with the homelessness and affordability of today.
Same in Romania, Ceausescu built 4 floor apartments that were given almost for free to young families. Now, 85% of romanians OWN their homes thanks to him. Unlike US or Canada, people don't have to work 25+ years to pay the mortgage for a sh...ty plywood and 2x4 house. I drove from Ontario to Florida a few times, taking different routes, and besides poverty, I saw better cars in the driveways than the home themselves. In regards to housing and food, you guys are 100 light years back compared to East Europe.
If you haven't already, you should do a video on the Soviet system of privileges for the elite- the special stores, special housing, special healthcare, etc.
We still live in communities like that from my apt doors to kindergaden entry just 20 meters I was walking out by myself to my soviet kindergarden every morning when I was 4-5 years old
Tractors have individual brakes for each rear wheel, the brake pedal is segmented left and right, on pavement like that, to turn around, he hits one brake very hard to force the tractor around. It's a bit abusive on the front tires but hey it works.
About the housing priority, at least in Yugoslavia, families with children were lower priority than directors who didn't even have a family of their own. My grandparents with 2 kids got a smaller apartment than some director who didn't have any kids.
He did what he could to help everybody, after Stalin took everything they had, he was nothing like stalling at all, he just did not trust the West but can you blame, him,
🎮Play War Thunder today: wtplay.link/thecoldwarthunder and get your free bonus for registering 🎁a premium tank, aircraft or ship as well as a three-day account boost!
Pain Thunder
The antiplanar NIMBY in the United States says that the Soviets made apartments. because it's easy to be bombed when they rebel
Now in China one with the latest technology as an apartment can be built in less than 7 days. and the majority of Chinese people have 2 apartments or more. weird if it's still there. homeless in the united states
8:55
By the way, the decree was November 1955, not 1950 (well, obviously-1950 would have still been under Stalin).
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Wait what? 😂😂 Bro more Chinese people rent by percentage of population than Americans? Meaning fewer people own their own homes… have you ever heard of China’s ghost cities? Where they build entire mega cities and no one lives there because it’s too expensive and too cheaply made. You’re either only seeing pro China sources or you’re a bot
For all the rightful criticism of the units, it always should be remembered that these apartments with electricity, running water, and sewage systems were being provided to a population that lived in rural peasant villages for most of Russias history. It was a grand improvement, especially considering the devastation the USSR suffered during WW2.
@@brutusvonmanhammer send proof
@@brutusvonmanhammer true. Though there were millions of average citizens that benefited directly from them. For all of their faults, the USSR did ensure housing wasn’t an issue at least.
@@brutusvonmanhammer this framing of any action the USSR did as malicious in its intent and their citizens as nothing more than prisoners who all hated living there is nothing more than Red Scare propaganda at its most basic and isn’t befitting of a quote on quote history major.
Many Soviet citizens liked the USSR. Many Soviet citizens were actually Socialists/Communists. Also, many Soviet citizens did not like the USSR and were not Socialists/Communists. It was complicated and the Soviet Union was very flawed, and how Socialist it was had ALWAYS been a debate on the left.
But it was a society, in all its complexity, which in many ways did try and care for its citizens and live up to its ideals, even though it did not always succeed.
@Squared Up explain to me how bringing up the forcible deportation to labor camps and outright murder of hundreds of thousands human beings for the absolute egregious sin of successfully cultivating a tiny piece of land is trolling?
Maybe you consider the holodimir to be one of the most ambitious and fascinating achievements of the 20th century?
@@brutusvonmanhammer The holodomor famine even though make Ukraine met with terrible losses wasn't the only famine that happened in that time, in fact there was a widespread famine in the USSR made by unprecedented natural disasters, droughts and made worse by the greed inside some of the people in charge during that time. And it was quickly being resolved by the Soviets within a year actually, with the Collectivism policy then actually bear fruit for the first time and with the extensive help of Soviet agriculture engineer during that year, USSR was able to overcome the famine and had its food supply strengthened as strong as ever, since then never facing any huge shortage of food supplies, way until the Union collapsed in 1991.
After the 1988 Armenia earthquake, Mikail Gorbachev went to inspect and remarked to journalists that he was puzzled why those collapsed apartments were mostly those built during the preceding 10 years and the Khrushcheva’s were mostly still standing.
The workers' sweat held the steel bars
Even over here in the United States today, you can see a mark in quality and standards in houses built in more recent years than those from the 90s and earlier. Construction of new neighborhoods with shoddy practices, bad quality typify houses today. Problems with the electrical system popping circuit breakers all the time for running every day appliances. Even the drawers in the kitchen were shoddy, having problems opening / closing smoothly.
I'd say people, companies used to care for stuff to be sturdy, lasting long, having some sort of standard of quality. Today in the US, you have all these new houses that look nice on the outside, especially in a newly built neighborhood, but the insides of these houses are utter crap. Houses are far more expensive now in America, but the quality has gone down sharply. Americans pay more for less.
@@Warmaker01 The problem is not the construction companies, but lack of them and lack of reasonable competition. It is societies fault, which has scared young people to avoid trades, because its dangerous and underpaid, and "requires less intelligence", since you know - "smart people go to college". No sh.. its dangerous, because construction labour market is filled with people who don't care about work safety and have no discipline, modern slaves, or even criminals that do it as a side hustle. And I am not talking about workers only, it includes construction equipment manufacturers etc.
@@charlesdarwin3124 Uhhh no, Construction is full of hard working Mexicans who are not allowed to take breaks and who constantly pass out from heat exhaustion.
It's the fault of the companies.
@@Seth9809 Company is just an empty name to put a blame on. At the heart of the problem is society as a whole and people that work there - everyone - including workers, managers, shareholders etc.
Your example of "hard working Mexicans" just proves my point. Who are the people that decide shift duration and disregard safety regulations?
I grew up not in Khrushchevka, but in Brezhnevka. Those are much better, especially when it comes to privacy - it has much better sound insulation
just hope the elevator keeps working...
LOL!
@@TheColdWarTV XD
@@TheColdWarTV what's an elevator?
(it's a joke, of course -- most Brezhnevkas had none)
@@igorsmihailovs52 Here in Latin America the social apartments have no elevators. No single one.
I grew up and still live in Krushchevka near Moscow. The biggest plus is the planning. A well-thought out public transportation, everything (public school, workout space, hospital) is within 5 to 10 minutes of walking distance. But by far the biggest positive aspect are HUGE spaces between the houses filled with parks and greenery, formerly also lots of bird, butterflies and squirrels. Unfortunately now they're gone because of the suicidal lawn "aesthetics", grass trimming and not caring about trees, which is destroying all biodiversity in the city. Krushchevka's blocks are the most eco-friendly urban planning I've ever seen anywhere. I look at the modern city blocks and all I see is steel, concrete and lots of floors, no space between buildings at all, no greenery, only parking lots - a good place to die from despair. Thus the only better alternative to an apartment in a Krushchevka is private house in the modern village.
Does the green space between buildings really make up for the cold aesthetic. I like the buildings that are a naximum of 5 stories tall, built next to each other, and park is down the street(west Europe style).
@@GUITARTIME2024 It absolutely does. It's really depressing to look outside your windows and see other people's windows, concrete walls and cars in all directions. It's much better for mental health and productivity so see birds and greenery at hand's length instead. Leaf wall also helps privacy. But I certainly agree about the height limit.
Seems dumb having lots of small hospitals, means much more doctors required and less specialization
@@Zwia. They aren't exactly the same. The ones in each block (or several blocks) are ambulatory clinics, without means to house patients. There is usually one or two big hospital per town. The small clinics however have (or, rather, I should say, had) all the usual specialists and are (were) fully staffed. That meant more specialists per capita, meaning less workload, meaning less waiting times and better treatment. Looking at the current healthcare crisis in the US, which beginning in Russia too, having the common cause - too many patients too few doctors because of the "financial optimization" - I can tell that the Soviet system of block clinics was much, much better.
@@communist754 Exactly!
12:41 I love how children breaking windows while playing and some old person shouting at them for that, is common, irrespective of societies and their ideologies.
I thought the same thing,
Humans are still humans. You could observe a similar scene 1000 years ago in Constantinople or 4000 years ago in Babylon.
@@untruelie2640 not sure they had windows 4000 years ago
@@TheLuuuuuc You know what I wanted to express, right?
@@TheLuuuuuc they had, 3500 BC back atleast india and china had
People might complain about their drabness, but I’d argue it’s preferable to homelessness. Khrushchev was right to prioritize scale over aesthetics at that moment in history, whatever many faults and limitations those apartments had.
I have read that the Budapest metro, to give one example, has become a place where the homeless take shelter. Prior to 1989 there was a housing shortage in Hungary but the metro was not used by the homeless and perhaps there were few if any who were completely homeless.
@@RK-cj4oc your post is a bit grammatically confusing, but I think I follow ? as I understand it (and the vid by CW seems to validate what I was saying), in the case of these apartments the design philosophy was clearly centered on cheapness and scale not any particular decision to choose brutalism over another aesthetic.
fact is, prefab poured cement is cheap as well as brutalist (perhaps one reason why brutalism itself was also a popular aesthetic for nations rebuilding postwar).
In any case they also made a legitimate aesthetic choice to create plenty of green space between the drab blocks.
theyre really impressive when you consider how poor the soviet union was at the time. you could double or triple the construction budgets to make them much nicer and they would still be insanely cheap
homelessness was a felony in the USSR
I have lived in a Khruschevka and I can attest that they are not all that small, certainly bigger than many apartments being built today, soundproofing isnt a big problem only if people are shouting or playing loud music can you hear it in another apartment. In modern apartments the soundproofing is much worse due to walls being much thinner.
They might seem terrible by today's standards but compared to the shared accommodation in barracks, dormitories and communes these wouldve been heavenly. It's not too dissimilar to many post war housing programs in lots of developed western nations, slum clearances of Victorian era tenements being replaced by high rise brutualist tower blocks which are derided today but we're a big improvement
Yes, these apartment buildings look terrible and ugly now. But when they were built it must have seemed like a god send for a family that had been living in a communal dormitory with no privacy at all and no personal rooms. Even if a family of 4 had to live in 2 rooms that would have been better than a shared dormitory.
It was better than what a lot of people have now in the first world. Having to live with parents because the rent is too high in the city. Or house share with strangers, ugh. How awful.
@@BVargas78 Communal housing is back. Thanks to the miracle of free market capitalism!
it might be pretty terrible to get raped but it is better than to get stabbed so nobody should complain
@@akinbodeog nah it’s back b/c of the socialist policies in liberal cities that bog down & disincentivize construction , driving up the prices of existing housing
I live in a classical khrushchovka in East Germany and have done for decades. Some of the points are valid. They are minimalist in design, the material quality is not wonderful (but not really bad either, mine has a B energy score and it's original except for "removable" IR-opaque screens screwed permanently into the original window frames, b/c that's how they do things round here) and the soundproofing, nope, none of that nonsense. But there are far worse places to live. They're small, maybe, but cosy and the floor plans are space-saving and practical with simple things like doors placed at 50 cm from the adjacent wall to leave space for cupboards and stuff behind them without obstruction. Simple build means simple to keep clean, fix and renovate. No bad architectural decisions like garbage chutes or whatever that collect dirt and vermin. Many of these buildings especially in former soviet bloc countries outside Russia have been renovated with insulation panels and a decent paint job, and they look much nicer than most modern blocks IMO.
American apartment complexes are no better than Kchrushevkas.... Most worse due to crime and poverty. I would say 99% of them have energy score of zero
People talk about how they’re shitty now, but yeah, of course they’ve fallen into disrepair. But imagine at the time finally being housed somewhere with water, electricity, stable shelter, close to work, with a community around you. It makes you understand why the population was fine to put up with a lot of the stuff the USSR did, it gave them a better life than the Tsar ever would have.
when those buildings were finished they looked far more decent and cleaner than today. decades of aging and poor maintenance caused these buildings to rot and look like semi-slums.
I work in construction in the UK...I've seen "apartments" built for social housing in big cities that arent much bigger than the designs at @14:12...these were being built in 2019 in Portsmouth, a fairly affluent city. And they didn't get a balcony!
uk average floor area is very small compared to rest of europe, and to the point of being hilarious when compared to north america. my company recently did stairways and cabinets in "micro apartments" here in norway which were about the same size as the average uk housing unit, funnily enough often only 1-2 rooms whereas uk often can fit 3-4 rooms on average with the same space
@@hellbergsucks yeah it's pretty gross. We are a very crowded island compared to Norway, but still it hurts.
Portsmouth the 2nd most congested city outside London. (its actually an island) I grew up there 😊. Plenty of failed housing and social projects, sommerstown, the tricorn (actually amazing), portadown Hill (portadown Park huge housing project, demolished quickly after completion), Buckland. New buildings are being thrown up mostly for student accommodation.
I think it's probably a stretch to call Portsmouth an affluent city - but it's not without its charms. My earliest memories are of growing-up in Southsea. For 50 years my aunt had a flat on the very top floor of Seaward Towers (amazing view of the harbour, Old Portsmouth, and the Solent....) in Gosport (one of the 2 1960s tower blocks overlooking Portsmouth harbour). Back in those days (when we had a Navy) there was much more hustle and bustle about the place - streams of cars and bicycles coming out of Portsmouth dockyard at the end of the working day.....
Norway doesn't have the population density problem that the UK has, but also Scandinavians enjoy a much higher/better standard of living than those in the UK (and many other Europeans) do. Norway's sovereign wealth fund is the largest in the world, which safeguards Norwegians' pensions, and, considering its tiny population, it holds a ridiculously high percentage of most of the world's listed companies - amazing for a country of only 5.5 million people.
It's almost like adding 10million (mostly net recipient) immigrants who outbreed the locals 3 to 1 was a shit idea or something
I live in Khrushchevka. Even tho it's outdated, it's better than nothing. +It's cheap.
And listening to your neighbours do anything can be free entertainment!
@@TheColdWarTV *spying ;)
Buy an apartment in a khrushchevka, and get audio porn every night for free.
Very basic housing should be free, as well as very basic food. Even if it's just a one bedroom small apartment stocked with ramen noodles and potatoes 👍
@@TheColdWarTV if i have to hear it all the time, i’d might as well ask «can I join?»
Imagine a politician today vowing to house his entire countries population in 15 years and in the process creating 400 factories and mostly being successful
That's commie talk!
And all you have to give up in exchange is everything. What a deal!
I mean they will vow for it for sure. But don't think they will implement it
Sounds like a commie to me.
Finland did it. No homelessness.
"Small flats" I live in Poland and PRL (times before falling of pro-russia government) flats are bigger then current new flats which are smaller and smaller and expensive every day.
I lived in some of these in Russia in the recent past. Gotta say, not too bad.
It IS weird to be in your friend's unit and realize it's truly identical to your place from two years back. It genuinely fucks with your sense of memory.
Take stairs 5 stories, yeah real not bad.
@@haylobos8261 they all seemed to have elevators. Some of which were normal sized, others strangely small.
@@ghostsethrich7306 Kruschev apartments did not have elevators. You either stayed in Brezhnev apartment or Stalinka. Or a Krushchev apartment that was remodeled.
Hence the film "The Irony of Fate."
@@andrewb292 glad you mentioned this.
Fantastic video. I find that economic and everyday information about the Soviet Union more fascinating than political and military topics.
It is a lie, that you, poor Westerner, believe because you are naive.
I lived in one when i was in Slovakia, mine was modernized with a nice coat of paint, new doors, windows, pipes and insulation however, you have the sound insulation wrong, those things are solid concrete, they have excellent sound proofing and overall, if they are space efficiently designed apartments i find them cheaper, cozier and far more affordable than any cheap ass shitty equivalent built by the lowest bidder today.
Yours have been modernized dim bulbous. But they had no kitchens, no elevators, no bathrooms. Total chit.
the quality of these buildings variet greatly between one Republic and the other. Don't assume that your anecdotal evidence of this kind of house in Slovakia means he is "wrong"
Great. I lived in Moscow for 6 years until 2020 and always wondered about more detail on these units. Though now it seems the city of Moscow is trying to get rid of these and develop their land with higher priced buildings, which is upsetting many of the current owners who feel they are not being compensated for them and that the rules for this process are wholly unfair.
That's how landowners make money.
@@Tadesan While i'm certain they are making several milions of dollars on each building by selling flats, the compensation is more or less fair I guess. My family got a renovated 73 sq m apartment with instead of 56 previously owned (17 sq m are worth 20 thousand USD).
In East Germany (the GDR), the urban reconstruction after the war was partially done in a similar way to the "people's construction" mentioned in the video. My grandmother still lives in one of these apartment buildings build in the 1950s. (Most of the houses were of a bit higher quality than the Kruzhchevkas though, with wooden roof beams and traditional triangular roofs with ceramic tiles, but otherwise relatively similar in size. While the apartments were bigger, the earlier new-build houses often had no central heating and the people had to use big ceramic-tile coal ovens. Most of them continued to be used until 1990.
It was only later that the GDR adopted the typical concrete modular building method, but then the buildings were more similar to the ones build under Brezhnev in the USSR and build almost exclusively by the state. An earlier example of this, although still in the shape of stalinist architecture (socialistic classicism), was the famous "Stalinallee" in Berlin, now named Karl-Marx-Allee. It was a massive prestige project, but it indirectly caused the the great people's uprising in the GDR in 1953.
Btw: In France, there was a form of voluntary house-building cooperatives too after the war: the so called "castors autocontstructeurs" ("self-building beavers").
Given that Germany now has a housing crisis, it might be a great idea to, you know, build new Plattenbau. Proposed rent controls can only do so much.
The East Berlin apartments were huge when I lived there, and many still have the coal ovens which will come in handy this winter with the energy crisis.
For all the faults pointed out looking back with a modern western perspective, aren't these blocks a wild success? Seems better then what there was before, and they solved housing after a decimated world war. I am from the Netherlands, and I wish we would step away from the whole 'the market will provide' when we are in the middle of a giant housing crisis. Housing should be a right, a first. It shouldn't be a commodity to be speculated on.
You are ignoring the waiting lists. Being able to access deficit goods and services in the USSR is not that easy.
Well.. lets put your population into poverty then give a few of them some crappy cramped apartments in exchange for the life spent at hard work and call it the victory of socialism. Great. and by the way soviets didn't solve housing problem. By the end of the USSR half of the population still lived in barracks, factory dormitories or so called 'communist apartments'.
Why were things the way they were before?
Just because there are massive problems in the current state of things (and housing is a problem everywhere, Canada just banned foreign investors for 2 years) it doesn't mean that anyone should be praising something that failed so miserably in the USSR. There are other ways.
@@communist754 How was it an achievement?
There are still Khruschevkas across Russia. In Moscow they tend to be 5-floor blocks characterised by tiny kitchens and bathrooms - with no lifts in the buildings. There's currently a huge redevelopment programme in the Russian capital which involves tearing down the Khruschevka blocks (and older apartment buildings) and replacing them with modern high-rise buildings. Many of the Stalin-era apartment buildings are quite sought-after places to live, often characterised by large windows, high ceilings and more living space. Some of the old Stalin-era towers have really impressive architecture.
@@ofHerWord For the last 7 years I've lived in a modern housing complex about 10km (7 miles) south-east of the centre of Moscow - there is a Khruschevka block outside my kitchen window - 150 metres (500 ft) from my building.....
My building has 18 floors and contains c.145 apartments of varying sizes: studio flats up to 3 bedroom apartments. On my floor live a retired couple, a policeman and his family, a young couple just starting a family, a husband and wife with 2 very young children, and another family with teenage children. There are people living off the state pension in the building, first-time renters, first-time buyers through to some residents who are met outside the building each morning by a chauffeur-driven Mercedes S-class or Bentley.... but everyone gets on with each other.
I'm not claiming that Russia is some sort of utopia (the country, like any, is not without its own particular problems and challenges) but the big cities in the UK, Europe and US (in particular) could learn a lot because some of the social problems (that are particularly associated with the US) barely exist (in some instances don't exist at all) here - which in Moscow, a city of some 12-15 million people, is quite incredible really.
@@ofHerWord stop this bullshit. Just stop it. You don't know what you are talking about.
@@ofHerWord I don't think NYC is a very good representation of Americans.
Khruschevera 's building was mostly precast concrete and modular design for quick construction and trouble free.
@@jagdpanther2224 The same could be said of Russian/Soviet apartment blocks built well-after Khruschev's time. The modular design/concrete construction (panel houses) continued from the 1950s probably until after the Soviet Union collapsed.....
I have nothing but respect for the incredible research that was done to make this video. I'm truly impressed by the extraordinary specificity, facts, and interesting history of Soviet housing that you all managed to provide for us in an entertaining and easily digestible video. Fantastic work!
A lot of them are nicer than places I lived in the US. Also interesting that a lot of Soviet era buildings and facilities are still in use. In the US, buildings have either been torn down, abandoned to the elements, or "upgraded" and made unaffordable. Meanwhile thousands of people die every year because they sleep outside.
Post soviet nations only barely hang on because of soviet-era infastructure, transport, and militaries.
30 years since capitalism and these nations still havent gotten better. 30 years of communism and these nations became space faring superpowers all while defeating fascist hordes on their doorstep.
Funny...
Yep
The people sleeping outside are almost always drug addicts who don't have homes because they're constantly high on meth or opioids, people who are extremely mentally ill, or both at once. The facet of homelessness you describe is entirely a mental health and substance abuse issue, not a matter of there being too few roofs to sleep under. Also I've seen many efficient housing complexes that are twice as old as most of the soviet era buildings you're talking about, right here in the US, and I've seen them in great abundance, depending on the area.
I've lived in > half of the American states, never lived in an apartment remotely that awful.
The people dying outside are drug addicts and criminals. In your Soviet paradise they’d be sent to gulags.
It was amazing program which immensely raised quality of living of millions of people. Any criticism is misguided as any project is full of errors or flawed in some way. People who disagree, need to live in a collective unit for an year and come with a fresh perspective. Beggars can't be choosers, with any better building, waiting list would significantly lengthen.
@@fridge6668 They were incredibly poor before communism and then two world wars happened. One which completely devastated nation.
You are childishly bias.
This is actually a pretty good achievement. Housing all those people in relative decent conditions all while dealing with an exploding population.
In comparison when for example england went from a feudal society into the industrial revolution people also lived with a dozen people in small single rooms or wooden shacks at the edge of cities. Human waste running down the streets. Bathing was done in a tub in the room and privacy was non existent.
People seem to forget that russia was still a non industrialised society 100 years ago. Pretty much what the rest of europe was a couple of centuries prior.
They made huge steps in a few very short decades.
don't compare them to the western social housing, because in the west those projects were intended for the marginalized poor while in the USSR they were intended for the most productive and successful part of the soviet society.
They industrialised much faster than the west because the west had to invent everything first, for instance the first Russian mass produced tractor was a copy of a Fordson.
the industrial revolution in England happened 150 years before the housing projects described here, so the technology was less developed so it's not really a fair comparison
Ok, saying this as someone who is from post-soviet satellite country (central Europe, not USSR) and lived my first ~20 years in one of these standardized concrete block apartment buildings and also lived in west for a few years later I would like to say a few points:
1) The flat layouts presented here are the worst flats deployed to poorest regions, in major cities there were 2 or 3 bedroom flats as majority of flats. I for example lived in 950 square feet / 85 meter square 3 bedroom one. Toilet and bathroom separate rooms and elevator was in all houses larger than 4 floors. Constructed in 1979.
2) Our building was 7 floors high and constructed from the standardized concrete panels that were 25cm / 10inches thick, hearing neighbors was never an issue. This was better than some of the western apartments I lived in the west where sometimes the developer used plasterboard as non-structural walls between residents! And not even in some student / slums, but middle class family housing.
3) Since my home country joined EU there was much effort to make these buildings energy efficient and what was surprisingly successful thanks to their similarity and modular construction they went through successful exchanges of interior utilities (water, heating, electricity, gas) and in my city thanks to government helping with financing vast majority these old buildings have now 20-30 cm (10 inches) of new isolation applied on their external walls and windows exchanged that government mandated with minimum thermal isolation features to be eligible to the grant money. My point here is that their old simplistic design was actually making these transitions much more cost efficient compared what the newer buildings where investor/developer is actually cheaping out on quality standards even more than communists were in the past.
Remember kids, communists were bad, but without vigilant electorate the greedy capitalists that replaced them can produce even worse results for the average person trying to buy a place to live.
Correct
Lemme guess, Poland?
The moral of the story is that large blocks of flats are always, always an unhuman way to live. Nobody would choose that way of life if they had an alternative, by which I mean a house with a garden.
@@Hereford1642 Nope, sorry but simply no. The modern car dominant suburbs is my view a completely antisocial dead end of urbanism. I am still a city person and more importantly an European city person as even with the socialist past, those housing neighborhoods provided great social services, there was enough green parks for kids between every second pair of buildings. Only in western movies always when there is a view on these old socialist apartment blocks they take away color to make them scary for western audiences. I for example still loved about my old city that I never needed a car. A tram or a trolley bus was scheduled every 5 minutes on lines criss-crossing the city. Grocery shop, park my kindergarden and elementary school was in walking distance for me and for everybody (since the density made it economical that schools were also close). I do not want to put here exactly my parents house but let's say this is google streets view of my block. Navigate the area a little or go to 3D map above. This is better side of socialist urbanism of 1970s on the positive side of the spectrum, just all the buildings have a new colorful coat as they were isolated. Yes you can see on the road patches that there is less public money on infrastructure as we are not yet a rich country, but I hope you would agree this is far away from the stereotype that you might have about communistic buildings and cities that have them.
www.google.com/maps/@48.1564799,17.1708677,3a,75y,244.2h,87.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8fQ7QcWaMynXxsD8e1eAQw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
@@networkgeekstuff9090 I can understand why countries went for these constructions but they are still bad and very few like them. Why do you think that they are not being built any more?
I don't know what more to say. Nobody wants them except desperate people in cities.
"The corn lord" sounds like Khrushchev's Dark Souls boss subtitle.
Khorne Lord
flats lord is more accurate i think
The Great Cornholio
Nikita, Lord of Corn
Say what you will about these places (my aunt lives in a lakotelep to this day- it’s a housing project) it reduced homelessness to next to zero.
It’s taboo to say this in the USA but east European communism did a lot of day to day stuff better than the United States.
It was illegal to be homeless in the USSR, you had no choice.
And crime to 90%!
@@snowflakemelter1172 it was illegal to have no registration. it's different. if you cant get a registration you will be just forced out of any large city.
Yes totalitarian states did have better records on social issues, crime and antisocial behaviour is difficult when you have 90,000 Stasi, 170,000 informers and the state cannot be investigated or challenged.
@@snowflakemelter1172 the funny thing is that they did not. Black market was florishing both in USSR and DDR. When the state is more concerned about some dissident they don't care about regular criminals. Even more. Sometimes they used their services
My grandparents in the Czech Republic participated in building their apartment block on the basis of the Peoples' construction. A family unit needed to collectively put in 2000 hours of work on the project, whether burning or laying bricks, moving material, painting the walls, etc., to be granted an apartment - if you didn't make those 2000 hours, you needed to pay the difference based on the hourly work pay at the construction establishement.
My grandparents worked almost every day couple hours after work and live in their magnificent 3 room, kitchen, bathroom, toilet, balcony and large store room apartment with a basement to this day.
If you calculate it, were you to put in 2 hours after work each day, splitting the difference with more time on the weekends and no time on sick or vacation days, you could get your own apartment in 1000 days, e.g. less than 3 years.
Absolutely remarkable system.
If only they had not sacrificed beauty to productivity. Beauty would have added maybe another 20% (wild guess) to the original price but the current generation would look at the result in an entirely different way. People would be nostalgic for a system that produced something to be proud of rather than seeing them as awful ugly blisters on the landscape.
I live on the edge of a modern posh housing estate built on the site of a Victorian mental hospital just outside a city on the welsh borders of England. I bought the old Victorian mortuary at auction and there I live while the hospital buildings have almost all been demolished and replaced with housing which although large and expensive looks like it was designed by a child with a lego set. They are far too expensive for the workers to dream of buying themselves.
Beauty has again been sacrificed but this time, not so much for productivity but for profit (interchangeable somewhat). With their gardens these buildings will never be the complete eyesores that brutalism achieved but at the same time have been built cheaply and quickly such that they will not stand the test of time and will inevitably become uglier and not more beautiful with time.
@@Hereford1642 But Soviet economic didn't work like that. You only have so much money and labor. 20% more beautiful means people have to work harder and longer to afford them. I wish the Soviet system had been more flexible.
I fucking love Khrushchev. I truly believe he was the last true socialist leader who really believed the system was there to help "The People" and tried to make it work for the citizens of the Soviet Union. Deserves more credit IMO.
Not to say he was an angel or anything.
Well.. lets put your population into poverty then give a few of them some crappy cramped apartments in exchange for the life spent at hard work and call it the victory of socialism.
@Lori Spencer and he gave crimea back to ukraine. maybe not for the right reasons but he did it
i love him too 🥰
From my layperson-interested perspective, I completely agree with you. I much prefer the attitude of 'we're all in this together' rather than 'every man for himself', especially when it comes to unearned generational wealth perpetuating inequality.
Definitely feels like one of the few honest socialist leaders.
They might look bad but when your former home was a timber shack without any amenities on the Russian steppe it was a huge step up .
I rented 2 room apartment in brick (brick > panel) built Khrushevka in Moscow. 45m2. Sound isolation was not great, but ok. Smell isolation was good. For 1 young person or a young couple it was a good solution as a start. Costed us 40k rubles or 570 $ (old exchange rate) plus utilities. Best thing is not the Khrushevka building but Khrushevka microdistrict as a whole - metro station, bus station, grocery, drug store, kindergarden, school, clinic, kids playground, outdoor gym with footbal field and tennis court, small park, even small local theater where student actors perform - all of this in 5-10 minute walk. And it is not a modern microdistrict. It was built and designed that way during Khrushev times.
That I noticed on a trip to Moscow, is not just buildings, there are stores at walking distance, plus transportation.
@@scrooge1374 It's like that here in the UK. We don't have zoning, everything is mixed. Housing estates have shops, pubs, schools, doctors, pharmacies etc within walking distance. Public transportation is good (sometimes excellent). I think it is the same across Europe. I'm 56, and I've never owned a car, I've never needed one.
All urban apartments have that. NY apartment have subways and buses everywhere. You are comparing suburbs to urban and saying this is better Show shall list is not smart.
My first apartment in Russia was a small Khrushchev era apartment, 9th floor with a loose fitting balcony which was precariously attached to the building, $96 per month, I would estimate 35-40sq/m; my next place was a much older/nicer Stalinist building thicker walls, better insulated, quieter, warmer and overall a better build quality (roughly 60sq/m) $112 rental per month.
Soviet housing practices have been very interesting to me ever since I found out just how much more efficient they are than modern American housing practices, and even more so when I checked out a few of them and realized most of the space complaints were older people feeling entitled. Even the really small ones are bigger than my dorm, and I have two roommates.
In the Mushroom Kingdom, we all live in the same apartment
You'll like the only video I've ever made. Its a goomba gag of putin
Goombas of the world, unite! The dear leader, Bowser will liberate us in his kind, calm usual manner against the shapeless evil!
@@Game_Hero 2 things
1) I'm not a goomba and,
2) my boss is King Koopa not Bowser. Like from the shows
I have repeatedly been impressed with how Kruschchev strove to improve the living standards of the Russian people. 🇺🇸
Yet he is despised by many people on the far left who feel he betrayed the Communist cause with his Secret Speech and admission of Stalins atrocities. It really shows you the true mindset of the radical left.
He's widely viewed as a traitor...
My maternal great grandfather lived in Khurshevka. It had some pecularities such as tiny room with a bed (and nothing else) or foldable furniture at places. It was similar in all Eastern Bloc appartments in concrete blocks of flats with 45 m^2 to 65 m^2. Back then it was supposed to be a stopgap measure, a temporary housing until bigger accomodations could be built. In the early 1990s the first Czech president Havel called them a rabbit-hutch, but 30 years later they made a return in a sense.
There is less concrete, but the new buildings have poor accustic isolation, weird floorplans (closet room, really?) and most of these flats aren't bigger than 50 m^2, yet most people can't afford them even if the central bank lessens their mortgage criteria (which often don't make sense at second glance). At least in the cities and towns, long-distance commuting could be still an option.
The cooperative housing is also making a return in my country, with some inspiration taken from Austria.
Because the cities are over built and it is difficult to build. Traffic, cost of land, cost of workers is too much, and show shall list EU regulations. But like you said you can commute get a proper house.
honestly what you described is very much what most of us who were young, lived in a city and bought Ikea folding furniture.
13:53 Furniture moved in through balconies ... That is exactly how it is done in South Korea, a nation of high rise apartments. Specialized moving trucks with mobile ramp elevators move stuff up up up and through the balconies.
Same in spain, outside of IKEA "build it yourself you muppet" stuff
For all of the detractors, these apartments have an almost extreme sense of durability and are not at all shabby. I lived in one for nearly two years and, though quality does leave something to be desired, they are more than reasonable in my opinion.
Actually, khruschevkas were and still continue to be an advantage, a sort of social housing estate absolutely comfortable and cosy inside but simple and not being stylish by exterior for no need... In Spain, as an example, there is a lot of khruschevka-like estate where many families of low to middle outcome are happy to live.
This was a remarkable achievement. Many of these buildings are still standing. I’ve been in some of them. When I lived in Moscow, we would combine 2-3 of these into a western-sized apartment.
That's a profound and professional level, all is correct. Still there was nothing mentioned about private houses which were widely spread in rural regions and in suburbs of towns. It was never banned but moreover encouraged to take a piece of land and to build a house on your own, even loan programs were proposed, note that they were almost for free, and you were even payed back for your own work on the construction of your house!
I love commie blocks, my uncle lives in one and the elevator is the size of two people and has a frame of stalin on the back wall. Perhaps not everyone who lives in them are happy with the arrangement but my uncle seems fine with it.
Kruschev apartments don't have elevators. Your uncle has a Breshnev apartment which were more "opulent". Which is why the Soviet Union went bankrupt.
What kind of evil monster houses everyone? Diabolical.
@@account-369 rather have a house than not
I was born and raised in post-socialist Mongolia in a similarly styled building apt.
Bertrand Russell, in a 1950 essay, wrote that there was such a severe housing shortage that if a single woman got pregnant, several men claimed to be the father so they could get their own apartment, and not live with parents.
Thank you for shedding light and debunking decades of propaganda concerning life in the soviet union
i lived in USSR. stop being a soviet fan boy
it was a fascist state that opressed the people. period
@@mykolatkachuk7770 You're just a pathetic anti-soviet fan boy mad in youtube comments that ppl are sharing positive experiences contrary to your stupid capitalist psychopathy.
If only. The host tried so hard to make the information sound as negative as possible.
@@mykolatkachuk7770 Nah. My family lived in both the HPR and USSR. The USSR most definitely wasn't facsist, as facism requires private control of industry. It also didn't "oppress the people", most of that is either exaggerated instances or outright fabrications from the West.
And now, all these decades later, these buildings once built with pride are being blown apart by those same shells made by the same generation, so suddenly long ago.
Governments should do something similar again and solve the housing problems worldwide. Of course with better isolation and modern technology. But cheaper housing is still needed all over the world.
It is governments that have caused the housing shortages. With their homes should save the environment and other such nun cens. Government should bott out, that is what is best. A bunch of college boys can't build better than the professionals.
Unfortunately, this is impossible to do under capitalism.
@P T
In all fairness, 68% of Canadians are property-owners.
Hungary is still full of these old 'panel' blocks, as we call them. There was a huge program to modernize them a few years ago. Doors, windows replaced, insulation on the outer walls, rebuilt central heating systems, etc. Paid by a mixture of government found, EU money and flat owner money/bank loans. They are better now, but it's still 'just a panel'...
The annoying thing is how they are all painted different jazzy colors. It makes the place look awful.
I am staying in one now, and I must say thought they are very similar in design and layouts to Russian khrushevkas, where I grew up, they are way better in terms of kitchen and bathroom size and sound insulation.
@@boredhuman9289
What remained, is mostly 1970's, early 80's designed and built, not the original 50's concept. As living standards improved, and expectations got higher, the problems became obvious soon enough, so improvement was made. Not to shun the original concept, it was a great idea and a certain improvement at the time, compared to what was available before. But times moved forward.
I used to hate Khrushchevkas, but compared to the modern 'Putinkas' going up in Moscow (built by PIK and other construction mafias under the so-called renovation program), Khrushchevkas are simply wonderful -lowrise, surrounded by greenery, decently built, etc. Putinkas are built mostly by underpaid laborers from Central Asia, are very low quality, and involve razing of entire neighborhoods, including greenery, to put up monotonous multicolored blocs 4-5 times as high as the 4-5 story Khrushchevkas. They are leading to the ghettoization of Moscow, its suburbs, and any other area unfortunate enough to know them.
True. Soviet reality begins to look much more attractive when familiarised with Capitalist alternative.
Nowadays, these bad and ugly "Khrushchevkas" cost tens thousands of dollars (about $60 000). In post-soviet countries $600 salary is very good one and desirable. If you safe the full salary every month, it takes 100 months or more than 8 years to raise the money. In real life, you have expenses (food, water, rent, utilities), so you can save up $150-200 monthly. So after 25 years you can indulge yourself with one "Khrushchevka". "Khrushchevkas" are definitely budget apartments. So, compare them with budget households in your country.
While our place in Soviet Estonia had wood burning stoves, no hot water or even an own bathroom. Communal toilet in the hallway and a cold water tap in the kitchen. Could have been worse- a friends place only had taps in corridors so they brought water in by buckets.
In 2003, in Yekaterinburg Russia (3rd largest city), my unsuccessful search for the birth mother of my nephew brought me into a collapsing communal residence. Rooms had a twin bed, one window,a small table and chair.
In America people complain about ‘run-down’ housing which, in comparison with all modern conveniences, would be considered to be ‘palatial’.
@@Titonka447 American housing is often falling apart/insect ridden after forty years so what looks good is lousy to live in. Only recently discovered insulation.
@@julianshepherd2038 American house is expensive and might be made with wood, but no way it's lousy or break down easily.
@@evankurniawan1311 Except for the fact that it does. Routinely.
@@Titonka447 *LOL Another Western dreamer, I live in Yekaterinburg, and if we compare Yekaterinburg and New York, then the communal living conditions in the USA in 2012 can be equated to the USSR after the war! :-)*
th-cam.com/video/jACXZhHCQdc/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%95%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3
th-cam.com/video/ZHCvrnWsSiM/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%95%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3
The people's construction thing is what my grandparents did. Originally they lived in one of those khruschevkas, but a new construction of a more modern building started and they participated. Scored a three room apartment. It was a family of four at the time and that apartment was actually pretty decent. Managed to have good neighbors and the building and its surroundings were quite clean. I subsequently grew up in it, but had pletny of friends who lived in khruschevkas. As a kid, I could not understand how one could live in those, but our friends were pretty content.
And fun fact about khruschevkas: the original architect for them was the grandfather of one russian rock star. Lagutenko.
I often visited friends in Baku, Azerbaijan, and they lived in a neighborhood of Russian style apartments--3, 4, or 5 story buildings. There were lots of trees and playgrounds, and the neighborhoods had small markets. Actually very nice.
Yugoslavia had a similar system, but in the socialist Croatia mega-companies, companies and unions mostly built for their own workers. It meant, if the company was bigger and had more cash, it builded better flats for their workers.
My late gradmother payed her appartment twice! First time, the person, a representive of the Teacher's union, who was building the appartements in the posh part of Zagreb sold them to other people for nice little amount cash and and much more important political favours. He went to prison for a one year (senteced to 10 year, but as he was a partisan veteran, they got him out), but his grandchildren probably enjoy the fruits of his criminal enterprise.
Second time, my gradmother payed for a sophisticated Yugoslav version of Hruscovka (35 m2) which actually survived the earthquakes that hit Zagreb not so far ago. All the time, the decent socialist workers and decent communists steal whatever they could in the process. Got to love Titoism, a fancy name for all around Yugoslav kleptomania. Lost 45 years of corruption, bad national relations that ended up in a crazy bloodshed, while let's say Austrians or Danes were having natural development.
I'm still living in Khrushchevka myself which I grew up in 😄
Your neighbours can hear you typing.
Same
@@TheColdWarTV oof 😅
@@TheColdWarTV better then sleeping on the streets
@@TheColdWarTV my neighbours can hear me whisper and I live in the "far superior" western housing
I grew up in colonial Hong Kong under British rule. Such apartments would have been our dream home. We were a family of 6 and our private area was plywood partitioned 8ft x 8ft space. We shared a communal sitting area, kitchen, and bathroom with 4 to 5 other families thus we had a spitoon our private area to "do our business" if the bathroom were busy. There are/flaws with communism but it was better than being a British colony.
It is very sad to contemplate the early paintings of Hong Kong harbour and compare with what it is now. You seem to be describing a time somewhere between the low level original and the high rise concrete and steel jungle it has become. I was flown there a few years ago to do some specialist technical work and was fairly shocked by how bladerunner it seemed to be. No star in Britains crown for sure but it seems like China is trying to emulate it as fast as it can.
I live in a former British colony 1800 sq ft. On a half acre lot.
Sounds like a Hong Kong problem.
@@atomicshadowman9143 It was both. HK is obviously a crowded place but the British ruled it with very little consideration for the average citizen. Racism was common and in the open so I think that it impacted how they ruled HK. There was zero social safety net and close to no social services, not even public education. It was nothing like the Uk in the same time period. We moved from HK to Manhattan and the living conditions were exponentially better so I think the government policies affects it.
The Btitish didn't force that on you it was already the culture and lifestyle of the region to live in tiny spaces, much like modern day Japan. The British just ruled what was there already.
The British did a hell of a job ruling Hong Kong. They turned it into what it is today.
The Soviet Union did a better job in regard to urban planning than in the west. All of the urban apartments in the UK we're poorly built and had a lack of amenities. The Soviet stuff is still going strong, all of the apartments built in the 60s 70s in the UK are being demolished. Who builds housing without shops nursery schools doctors the UK did, the USSR gave its citizens that all within sensible walking distance
they are all falling apart because soviets used sand without concrete to stick bricks together
It was back in the early 90s that I was in Russia, I was in Moscow and then Yekaterinburg, and I loved living there, The homes Flats or apartments were warm and dry and I found them to be comfortable. despite the propaganda, I had heard living in the UK about how awful the SU was and the homes were a vast improvement from what I had been living in. I had been living in Hulme Manchester in one of the bull rings, Jon Nash Cresent. I was overrun by cockroaches, some of the internal walls sot of just hung in the air with the internal bolts supporting them. There was a lot of crime in the area mostly muggings, This area also had many students from Manchester University, I suppose they just endured this as they could go home when the holidays came around, They also knew that they did not have to remain trapped there once they had their desired degree and could leave never to return. The cost of heating these flats was very hard, and due to the curved design everything was curved, this made it costly to buy carpets as carets are straight and so you had to buy more than you needed. OK back to Russia, where I found that heating was not a case of my turning on the heat, this was sent to the flats I am not sure from where maybe from power stations, It was all very clever and very nice. As for countries I have in my heart my love for Ireland and for Russia, my love for the UK is also there, OH a lot of people in the cities also have country houses, These are like what you see if you watch fiddler on the roof.
Yes, the constant bashing of Stalinist block housing is the utmost hypocrisy, this guy from the West even mentioned inequality in Soviet housing with a straight fucking face! We have homeless encampments all over the place, the mental gymnastics required to criticize the USSR from the RIGHT!
You're so right. I was one of those students in Manchester and I remember having to sleep in my gloves and hat because the insulation was so poor even with radiator blasting. I would always rush to go home to Slovakia for any holidays and didn't bother to come back for school until October. Lol
My grandma and grandpa received a three room apartment in khrushchevka in 1970 from the hospital where they worked at. But before that, she and my grandpa had to live in aroom in a building of the hospital's archive for two years.
My other grandma and grandpa have lived for four years until they got four room apartment from grandpa's workplace in 1969. I think in case of my family their waiting period for apartment was relatively short
A little bit of observations:
Projects of apartment blocks built same year may differ significantly even in one city. I grew up in a brezhnevka built in 1981 and apartment has no issues with sound insulation and size of a kitchen. Another nice thing about my specific building is good thermal insulation. In my region temperatures can reach 35-40 degrees in summer and -20 in winter, but the temperature inside is ≈24 degrees around the year.
At the same time, my friend who lives in another brezhnevka nearby, truly suffers from bad sound insulation and heat in summer
@@Егор-р6м8ю sound and heat insulation basically go hand in hand.
i am an expat in a post Soviet country and living in a 5 store apartment built in 1965. As he said, these apartments are small and designed not to stay in and do the housework. The kitchen is very small, basically not existing ( people were apparently eating out on those days, and kitchens were seen as unnecessary by Soviet authority). The design of the apartment is clearly meant to be practical without anything that has no purpose. However we are talking about 60 years ago. These apartments had central heating, central cold and hot water, which were considered luxury in all countries on the earth except the richest countries, and still are considered luxury maybe in half of the world. And finally i would be happy to live in a newly built apartment with exact same design and facilities.
I wonder why they didn't let you guys own guns?
I wish that I had a Kruschevka here in the US!!
me too. I don't need much space, if I'm at home I'm either sleeping or gaming, both of which don't need a lot of room. plus, I like the idea that each little block has close access to the necessities, making it unnecessary to go very far from home.
You already have that. It's called the housing projects.
@@shauncameron8390 Although I am referring to the generally bleak appearance of the housing, I was referring specifically to the Kruschevka! Having traveled the world and the US, I have only seen this particular type of architecture in a small # of European countries(most, in fact all, in the "formerly" communist Eastern European geographical zone, for lack of a better term.
I have one - a small room with an attached bathroom. It functions like a studio apartment. Not exactly big on space but at least I have a place to stay which is better than living on the streets.
I remember reading once that as a result of an earthquake in Soviet Central Asia sometime in the 1970s, buildings in general and housing specifically that were constructed during Khrushchev's reign survived far better than those built during the sclerotic rule of Brezhnev.
Probably because they were shorter. Shorter buildings (even ones that aren't built to the highest standards) are more resistant to earthquakes than tall buildings. It's why so many areas on fault lines ban all buildings over a certain height unless they're directly approved by the highest authorities.
Gavin Newsom could really use a lesson from Khrushchev regarding affordable housing
Instead it's all fake "luxury" as far as the eye can see that just perpetuates poverty, making public transit a nuisance as a result. Higher density unattainable dogshit that offers neither the car-centered freedoms of the past nor the urbanism of the future. Just the worst of both worlds.
I am delighted, and also flat-out astonished, to find so many people praising this community-focused 'equality for all' project, despite its flaws. This is very refreshing. In the US the attitude seems to be that if you're homeless it's your own fault because you're too lazy, and if you have a big fancy house it's because you deserve it and worked harder than everyone else, even though it is basically always unearned generational wealth that has faciliated such a quality of life.
СССР никогда не был "обществом равных".
The USSR has never been a "society of equals".
Kings & Generals, The Cold War, The Great War, Historymarche, Epic history, Baz battles & Mr.Ballen are all my favorite channels.
For khruschevka residents at that time it was just like the phrase "something better than nothing "
Being Homeless is horrible. These apartments were built to give shelter with heat, food storage, electricity, running water, and sewage. And that's what they did and still are doing today.
6ft of space per person......maybe it's the best a communist can do, but it's not the best we can do. we did better
@@007kingifrit When homelessness existed and continues to exist in the capitalist West, you in fact did not do better. Also, 323-646 sq. ft.
Replacing the nuclear family? Now where have I heard that one recently???
The Soviets reversed that within a few years though, because, you know, declining demographics.
They are the same people thats why. The goal is subvert and demoralize
@@Skullnaught Yeap, absolutely. A bunch of commies and others with a mission of division have infiltrated parts of society, using legitimate grievances to turn people against their fellow person.
It's effective for now, unfortunately. I think the best antidote is to call it out with respect. I think we need to have more compassion as individuals and address the shortcomings in our society that these commies prey upon, or else they will continue to have some success.
Have you seen the 1975 movie The Irony of Fate? Its opening makes fun of the uniformity of this housing in an entertaining way.
There's an awesome video about the urban planning of the Soviet Union. It's more about the urban planning than History, though. It from a channel about urban planning, btw. Nice video, Mr. Cold! When will you start selling The Cold War beer - best served .... cold!
Khrushchev graduated in Engineering on the first classes of the Bolshevik Universities. The world would be quite different if he managed to introduce prices in the Soviet production system.
You're talking about the Eco Gecko videos I think. Yes, they're excellent.
I was in the USSR in 1981.
Our tour guide was a guy our age.
He pointed out the Khrushchev "slums" around the city.
What Khrushchev did was remove the elevators.
That made the apartments just that much bigger.
So you had to walk up flights of stairs.
People tended to want the one's with the elevators.
Early hruscovkas are not too bad as they were made of bricks, quite thick outer walls, and depending on the actual project (There are hundreds of variations for building, they might look the same, but they are not on the inside planning) you might have load-bearing walls with some or all neighbors in that case sound isolation is not actually bad. Most new affordable! houses have worse sound isolation due to the usage of thin walls mostly made of drywall.
I still live and bought an apartment in brick hruscovka, ones from concrete panels are a bit different story, but in general pros:
1) Hruscovckas are affordable nowadays !!!
2) 2-room apartments are 40-45 square meters, its OK amount of living space in city and definitely better than a studio apartment. !!!
3) Location within big cities often is good
4) Lot of spacing between buildings with trees and grass
5) Brick ones are actually not a bad quality in general, the ones that had problems have shown them already - just avoid such buildings. !!
6) Both pro and a con - often apartments are sold not renovated, but a lot cheaper, so you can change windows and do renovations the way you like it.
7) If the building is renovated it also has good insulation, plus it also do not look too bad.
8) Most of the walls within the apartment are not load-bearing so planning often can be modernized and quite easily legalized
Cons:
1) Pipes and electricity are in bad condition (Usually they are at least partially renewed)
2) Top-floor apartments might have issues with roof leaking at some point
3) Population within the house is often older people or people who do not have funds or will to invest in renovation !!! (This is one of the major downsides for me personally)
4) For bigger families space might not be sufficient as they are mostly up to 50 square meters (3 room apartment)
5) Balcony in all of them is in very bad condition - pretty much unusable.
6) Some of them are on rented land (After collapsing of USSR some people recovered their land just to see that now there are soviet blocks built on them) so you might need to pay small rent as buying out land is hard often.
7) Stairways and outside often look run down
8) No elevators
9) Basement storage is not suitable for storing anything (Very humid) or often is nonexistent.
10) Panel ones unless renovated are often no go for buying, but might be ok for temporary renting.
11) 2.5 meter ceilings, sometimes less.
12) Some issues with ventilation as it is only in the kitchen and bathroom.
13) Rooms often are not isolated, meaning you need to walk through one room to access another one.
14) If not renovated roof material might be asbestos
15) Some flats might have unapproved planning - walled-in balconys (almost impossible to legalize); Touched load bearing walls (Also almost impossible to legalize); Changed planning (If intact load-bearing walls just some extra costs)
It might seem more cons than pros, but most of the cons are building specific or not a huge deal in general for me personally.
Soviet Union: puts people in barracks and basements.
Also Soviet Union: plans operation liberate people from barracks and basements.
My relatives in East Germany had this style apartment. I remember that it was small but very homey.
Love this channel and just learning about the cold war keep it up👍
At 6:50, you had mentioned something about "70M square meters affecting 25M people." This means that everyone gets only ~3 square meters, which is only around 30 square feet person. This is barely more than 5.5 feet by 5.5 feet. Nobody can live in an area that small.
I've lived in smaller than that, with my then partner. In the UK.
And yet people did for decades. A whole family would live in a tiny room with a communal kitchen and bathroom. It was still better for an individual to have own tiny room than to live on the street.
YA-A-A-A-A-AY!!! FINALLY, SOMEONE WHO CORRECTLY PRONOUNCES NIKITA'S LAST NAME! "KHROO-shyov," not "KROO-shehv"! I'm so very happy now! YA-A-A-A-A-AY!!!
THANK YOU i have been waiting so long for the Khruschovka
You will continue to wait for your Khrushchovka until your name appears at the top of your workplaces list. Unless you are willing to offer a small bribe of some sort...
@@TheColdWarTV I have made sure to grease the right palms with KornKoin
Great Docs, but may I give you a touch of audio advice… your dual microphone setup is causing a fair bit of phasing, especially when speaking with more energy. You may notice this a a hollowness in the high mid and added sharpness in the hi end.. long story short, use just one mic track and try doubling it with a slight touch of delay or echo. You will find you will still obtain the fullness and wide sound stage that you desire without the harsh high end notes… cheers!
Amazing how many people commenting either praise or make excuses for Soviet housing.
Like many Americans, I was brought up to see Khrushchev as a "bad guy". What a surprise to find out he was actually a hero. After the murderous regime of Stalin, Nikita looked pretty good.
Is any soviet leader brought up in the US as anything else than a bad guy?
Thank you for this..it's very timely, because in this country we're having a severe crisis of not only a lack of housing but of unaffordability of those that exists. The government's late and feeble response to this crisis is a little more than lip service.
Most homelessness is the result of drug addiction and a result of the governments failure to combat drug abuse.
Gosh, if enough houses are handed out the house prices won't go up, how can you do that? ! you lunatic! In this way, taxes and corporate profits will decline! economy will collapse! （owo）
@@zhu_zi4533 given your avatar, you are not a person to be taken seriously.
Excellent and informative.
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen more Soviet apologists in one place than in these comments.
"We will give a flat! " - sounds like a treat. Love it.
When you know what -40° feels like. Cheers.
Isn’t the conversion of private to communal housing shown in Dr Zhivago?
Don’t limit your understanding of public housing to the US experience which is concentrating poor minorities into high rise complexes.
Look to Singapore and Austria for good public housing policy. The Soviet Union was probably not bad considering where they were starting from.
I would say that even the US cases are not that bad, I mean compared with the homelessness and affordability of today.
I hope he'll tackle about how the HDB developed housing across Singapore. It was started during the Cold War, after all.
Same in Romania, Ceausescu built 4 floor apartments that were given almost for free to young families. Now, 85% of romanians OWN their homes thanks to him. Unlike US or Canada, people don't have to work 25+ years to pay the mortgage for a sh...ty plywood and 2x4 house. I drove from Ontario to Florida a few times, taking different routes, and besides poverty, I saw better cars in the driveways than the home themselves. In regards to housing and food, you guys are 100 light years back compared to East Europe.
But no basic utilities, heating or consistent electricity.
If you haven't already, you should do a video on the Soviet system of privileges for the elite- the special stores, special housing, special healthcare, etc.
We still live in communities like that from my apt doors to kindergaden entry just 20 meters I was walking out by myself to my soviet kindergarden every morning when I was 4-5 years old
17:30 Did that dude just handbrake-turn a _tractor_?! 🤣
Tractors have individual brakes for each rear wheel, the brake pedal is segmented left and right, on pavement like that, to turn around, he hits one brake very hard to force the tractor around. It's a bit abusive on the front tires but hey it works.
He saw a tank to add to his collection...
@@TheColdWarTV Hah! 🤣
Grew up in one, for 29 years slept on a extendable couch/armchair or floor, had no idea how a real bed feels until i moved out
Fun fact, most of those flats in Moscow haven't changed and are now 60,000 rubles a month 😅
About the housing priority, at least in Yugoslavia, families with children were lower priority than directors who didn't even have a family of their own.
My grandparents with 2 kids got a smaller apartment than some director who didn't have any kids.
He did what he could to help everybody, after Stalin took everything they had, he was nothing like stalling at all, he just did not trust the West but can you blame, him,
Thank you David. I like your stories about my country