One of the main goal of prefab multiapartment buildings was to place workforce closer to the workplace.
Also, all necessary utilities - public transport, shops, kindergardens, everything people need was also build in that areas.
But contrary to 15 min cities idea, there was no any limits or restrictions on travel or whatever.
Also, it should be taken in account, that this khruschovka districts was built very sparse - each apartment building have a lot of space around, for gardens, parks, parkings, playgrounds, sport fields and so on. Schools and kindergardens often placed in the center of such district. There was a rumor that such sparse building positioning was choosen to avoid falling of buildings one on another in case of nuclear bombing. Anyway, as one who grew in such khruschevka district, I state that in any case, this districts was really cool from the useability point of view. You had everything you need right on your doorway, with plenty of nature in between. I find them much more comfortable than modern urban districts where buildings rised one on each other and there is no place for anything. Things get worse when renovation came to that khruschovka districts. Instead of one 5-storey building developers began to build 2-3 17-22-storey buildings. So, no any gardens and parks at your dorway anymore. In the best case there will be small car parking and degraded playground, not even talking about hockey box or tennis court. This was one of the reasons I moved into rural area.
Overall, the only drawbacks of khruschovka districts was the size of apartments (~40 sq.meters for 2-room apartment on average) and medium quality of buildings. Everything else was very comfortable.
After USSR fall nearly all apartments become a property of inhabitants, so, yes, most Russians own their apartments. Rural houses was personal propertiy always, even in USSR times. I'm too lazy to look for proper value, but 85% of home ownership looks close to the truth. Also, take in account that noticeable part of tenants really own realty in another town. Most part of tenants are youth who want to separate from parents and those who moved recently looking for better job. With high probability they will buy an apartment in future.
When free market came, suddenly, land in town become a very expensive thing, so developers start to increase density of apartments per square kilomenter of land to insane levels. There are still some khruschovka districts even in Moscow or Petersburg, but they will not last forever. Developers, sooner or later, will destroy them and build their stone jungles for profit.
I think that this stupidity about land in towns and developers trying to build apartments as dense as possible is one of the worst consequences of capitalism. Realty, in whole, turns very weird mess if you apply all that "free market" things to heavily social area like urban life. Growing number of town inhabitants rise the price of land and realty, so developers trying to make maximum profit just escalate things further, and you end with a dense megapolis with trafic jams, insane density, overpriced housing and all that problems. Some cities tried to solve that problem, like Munich in Germany where developer can't build more than 5-storey building and have other restrictions, but any of such solutions are always criticized by developers and realtors as uncapitalistic, soviet and so on.
All in all, Soviet khruschovka districts have nothing common with that 15-minute cities of NWO. They was quite opposite phenomena, resulted from industrialisation and soviet approach to solve the post-WWII housing crisis in the fastest and cheapest possible ways along with absence of city land price restriction. And they are not failed, really. They was destroyed by developers driven by greed. If developers would have been forced to build only more comfortable and reliable replacements for khruschovkas, this districts could become the best possible urban realty you could think of.
That's not true. The goal was to have your needs met with in one neighborhood, it's very similar to the 15 min city even if people weren't restricted that was their goal to keep people in one area. On top of that we are seeing the push to get rid of single family neighborhoods along with tactics to force people into renting instead of owning with high property taxes, interest rates, inflated home values and so on. The goal is the same. Abolish private property and attempt to restrict people in one area. And of course limit the ability to be self sufficient at all / unable to live off the land.
1917-1930: First efforts, first experiments The October Revolution brought about a number of changes in Russia’s housing policies, defining its development for many years to come. Two decrees of 1918, “On Abolition of Private Property in Cities” and “On Land Socialization,” gave rise to so-called communal apartments. The state-owned property began to account for a larger share of the country’s total housing stock and construction projects; the Soviet regime also took over the task of allocating dwellings among people.... According to plan, a local resident could have spent his whole life in this neighbourhood without feeling any need for something outside of it: this place had shops, nurseries, schools, an institute with dormitories, factory, and even a crematory...[hmmm sounds so familiar].
I do get that convenience can be nice. I lived in a city and miss walking to the corner to buy produce. However the push for less to no homeownership along w the 15 city idea is very similar and a commie tactic. They may change the way they implement things slightly but it's always the same goal. No home ownership, co-living, no ability to sustain ones self / dependency on the government.
That's not true. The goal was to have your needs met with in one neighborhood, it's very similar to the 15 min city even if people weren't restricted that was their goal to keep people in one area.
There was no goal to keep people in one area at all. How that worked - financing was either from a government, for districts with weared housing, either from a factory to build a district for workers families to attract workforce and have it closer. Obviously in most cases only one member of family worked on that factory, in the case of government renovation that was not a case at all. So, around half of such district had a job in another part of town. In large towns only tiny amount of district inhabitants had a job in that district. Public transport was cheap as dirt or even free, so there was no problems in having job in other parts of town.
And of course limit the ability to be self sufficient at all / unable to live off the land. 1917-1930:
If you are not aware, rare Soviet family didn't have a vacation house (dacha) with a piece of land. That kind of rest for urban inhabitants, with growing own food was even propagandized. Also it was possible to rent (for a very symbolic price) a piece of farmland and grow your own potatoes or whatever for food. Such recreation was encouraged by authorities.
According to plan, a local resident could have spent his whole life in this neighbourhood without feeling any need for something outside of it: this place had shops, nurseries, schools, an institute with dormitories, factory, and even a crematory.
Never heard about such plans. Yes, there was groceries, shops, kindergardens and schools in every district, but that was not to limit inhabitants, but to make their life more comfortable, to not force them to waste much time on everyday things. There was never any restrictions on choosing a school with better teachers in other district or visiting pub on another end of town. They build subway lines between districts in large towns and there always was enough public transport and roads between districts. Also, at larger scale, tourism, vacation travels, tours, cultural education by visiting different places of USSR was higly propagandized officially. Communist Party thougth that all this stuff is highly useful for better efficiency of workers and pushed narrative that Soviet citizen should visit every amasing corner of USSR. They literally encouraged people to travel. Enterprises people work on even give out vouchers for different voyages and cruises for free. And we don't even need any ID to travel, even on planes. Only in mid-70s Aeroflot began to ask for ID for plane tickets and boarding, and not by its will, but by demand of fucking ICAO for the planes tha could theoretically reach abroad. Short local routes with small planes still didn't ask for ID until USSR fall, I traveled from Kherson to Simferopol around 1987 on plane without any documents at all - just got to small field airport, bought a ticket in a booth, take a seat in airplane nearby and that's all. Just like on a bus.
I lived trough it, and I spend all my childhood exactly in such khruschevka district. Nobody, never thought, told, even rumored about any restrictions you find today in 15-minute city agenda. I just know that USSR districts was complete opposite to what is now pushed as 15-minutes cities, and even opposite to modern urban architecture as whole. Having a kindergarden and grocery nearby does not mean you was somehow limited only to that grocery and kindergarden. It was just fucking logical and convenient to have a grocery and kindergarden nearby, and that's all.
I perfectly understand the desire to somehow scare normies about 15-minute cities idea. But why use blatant lies about USSR to do that? All they know about USSR/Russia they know only from the lying mouths of USSR/Russia worst enemies. Why continue with that lying? White lies are lies too.
Really, I don't understand many western approaches to the problem of informing normies about inconvinient truths. F.e. in that case you (or whatever person that choose that approach) obviously afraid that normies will be bought with grocery and kindergarden nearby, and all that "green" bullshit. So, you are trying to somehow show that grocery and kindergarden nearby is bad. To show that it is bad you choose a lie that in awful USSR they already had groceries and kindergardens nearby. Why not to try use USSR approach as an example of much better alternative, with groceries and kindergarden nearby, with real green environment, cheap and affordable and without any restrictions? Normies like groceries and kindergardens nearby, and green parks too. And especialy they like affordable housing. They hardly will protest against 15-minute cities if you tell them that groceries and kindergarden nearby is bad. They will not see any profit in that.
To defeat the idea of 15-minute cities in the heads of normies, you have to show them a better alternative. Propose something better and show that they are tricked. And then they probably could protest and demand alternative. Show them that they could have a nice, really green district with tons of trees around, with groceries, kindergardens, schools, and all that with affordable housing, like USSR did, instead of that western urban idiocy with buildings on each other glued together along the narrow street withour single tree with enormous household prices that need hard restrictions of movement to become "green" and higher taxes and total surveillance to get grocery and kindergarden nearby. They just need to demand extermination of any land market speculation, laws about minimum land area around multiapartment building that could not be developed for other buildings and green light for pre-fabricated architecture. Not so impossible demands, and some developers with manufacturing capacity useful for pre-fabrication even could lobby them for profit. Normies see that they can get what they need without anal probes on the borders of district, anti-15-minute cities movement get support from business.
Normies don't need more scare, they need answers and solutions. While you deny to provide them and offer only scare, you will lose again and again.
So this entire article here is a lie? Hmmm. I find that hard to believe. No one is against convenience almost everywhere in the USA you have all your needs met with in 15 or 20 min even in rural America.
https://www.rbth.com/history/333374-propiska-in-soviet-union
"In 1974, the Soviet government finally decided to give out passports to all categories of its citizens – this process, however, began in 1976 and was completed only at the beginning of the 1980s. But even with passports, Soviet people were restricted to their certain place of residence. Let’s see how the propiska worked."
"Naturally, immediately after the Bolsheviks took power, they banned the Tsarist passport system – but introduced the ‘employment record books’ – to control the population and seek out those who didn’t work. In 1925, the notion of propiska was first introduced into Soviet reality: the IDs the Soviet citizens had were stamped with their permanent place of residence. In 1932, the passport system was fully re-introduced, with propiska being an important feature that allowed a citizen to access government services, including medical help, at their place of residence. As we mentioned before, almost all Soviet peasants had no passports back in the 1930s. Up until the 1980s, the villagers had to ask for a special permit to leave their village and go study or work in the city."
Awful lot of information regarding restrictions and the propiska system..... like tons of info to be found. Maybe you were ignorant to what was happening around you as a kid. Idk.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union
This have nothing to do with reality. Again. Where did you get all that bullshit?
"Propiska" was kind of household ownership certificate in your ID named "passport". It meant that you have a right to live in that household and have access to local services. Some government services, like car registration, f,e. was available only at place of your living. Most public services, like medicine, education or whatever was available everywhere, regardless of that stamp in passport. In rare special cases "propiska" could limit movement only to so-called "closed" towns where top secret military factories resided. Only those who had households in such towns (and so proper "propiska" stamp in passport) was allowed to came in. Inhabitants of such towns was free to travel anywhere and in no way was restricted to leave the town. How that rare case could be used to make a conclusion about global restrictive nature of "propiska" is out of my imagination.
USSR internal passport had nothing to do with limits on movement. It was just ID and was rarely needed in everyday life. If you moved you had to get a new "propiska" stamp. It was not that government permit you to move, it was like you inform government about your new household. Really, people hate that thing, because it was time consuming, with all that lines and gathering papers with stamps in different offices, but something tell me that people hate governement services all around the world for exactly same reason, regardless of country, political system and so on.
Rural inhabitants without passports just don't needed them. There was no any need for any "permit" for anybody to travel or move anywhere since mid-30s when Jewish Bolsheviks was exterminated by Stalin. One of my grandfathers was a worker at a state farm, deep in rural area, he had no passport or any documents at all except secondary education certificate and birth certificate. Once he decided to continue his education in university in Moscow, he just laid off from farm, get train to Moscow, passed exams and become a student. He got a passport only few years later, just in case, not because it was necessary for something.
Funny, AFAIK, in USA you need SSN and/or driver license to do most things with government and even private banks and other services, and have to, say, register your car in the state you permanently live, you can't permanently live in NY and drive a car with Texas plates. How is it different from USSR internal passport system? SSN is named SSN and not a "passport" and that somehow makes SSN acceptible and soviet passport awful?
Really, I think humans don't need all that ID shit and should nor be forced to have one, nor limited to have only one, it is needed only by state, so it is a purely state problem, not a problem of individual and state could GTFO and resolve its own problem by itself.
But regarding some extraordinary evilness of Soviet passport in comparison to USA SSN, European passports/IDs and other similar stuff around the world, it is complete bullshit. It is the same thing, just named "passport" in USSR.
One of the main goal of prefab multiapartment buildings was to place workforce closer to the workplace.
Also, all necessary utilities - public transport, shops, kindergardens, everything people need was also build in that areas.
But contrary to 15 min cities idea, there was no any limits or restrictions on travel or whatever.
Also, it should be taken in account, that this khruschovka districts was built very sparse - each apartment building have a lot of space around, for gardens, parks, parkings, playgrounds, sport fields and so on. Schools and kindergardens often placed in the center of such district. There was a rumor that such sparse building positioning was choosen to avoid falling of buildings one on another in case of nuclear bombing. Anyway, as one who grew in such khruschevka district, I state that in any case, this districts was really cool from the useability point of view. You had everything you need right on your doorway, with plenty of nature in between. I find them much more comfortable than modern urban districts where buildings rised one on each other and there is no place for anything. Things get worse when renovation came to that khruschovka districts. Instead of one 5-storey building developers began to build 2-3 17-22-storey buildings. So, no any gardens and parks at your dorway anymore. In the best case there will be small car parking and degraded playground, not even talking about hockey box or tennis court. This was one of the reasons I moved into rural area.
Overall, the only drawbacks of khruschovka districts was the size of apartments (~40 sq.meters for 2-room apartment on average) and medium quality of buildings. Everything else was very comfortable.
After USSR fall nearly all apartments become a property of inhabitants, so, yes, most Russians own their apartments. Rural houses was personal propertiy always, even in USSR times. I'm too lazy to look for proper value, but 85% of home ownership looks close to the truth. Also, take in account that noticeable part of tenants really own realty in another town. Most part of tenants are youth who want to separate from parents and those who moved recently looking for better job. With high probability they will buy an apartment in future.
When free market came, suddenly, land in town become a very expensive thing, so developers start to increase density of apartments per square kilomenter of land to insane levels. There are still some khruschovka districts even in Moscow or Petersburg, but they will not last forever. Developers, sooner or later, will destroy them and build their stone jungles for profit.
I think that this stupidity about land in towns and developers trying to build apartments as dense as possible is one of the worst consequences of capitalism. Realty, in whole, turns very weird mess if you apply all that "free market" things to heavily social area like urban life. Growing number of town inhabitants rise the price of land and realty, so developers trying to make maximum profit just escalate things further, and you end with a dense megapolis with trafic jams, insane density, overpriced housing and all that problems. Some cities tried to solve that problem, like Munich in Germany where developer can't build more than 5-storey building and have other restrictions, but any of such solutions are always criticized by developers and realtors as uncapitalistic, soviet and so on.
All in all, Soviet khruschovka districts have nothing common with that 15-minute cities of NWO. They was quite opposite phenomena, resulted from industrialisation and soviet approach to solve the post-WWII housing crisis in the fastest and cheapest possible ways along with absence of city land price restriction. And they are not failed, really. They was destroyed by developers driven by greed. If developers would have been forced to build only more comfortable and reliable replacements for khruschovkas, this districts could become the best possible urban realty you could think of.
That's not true. The goal was to have your needs met with in one neighborhood, it's very similar to the 15 min city even if people weren't restricted that was their goal to keep people in one area. On top of that we are seeing the push to get rid of single family neighborhoods along with tactics to force people into renting instead of owning with high property taxes, interest rates, inflated home values and so on. The goal is the same. Abolish private property and attempt to restrict people in one area. And of course limit the ability to be self sufficient at all / unable to live off the land. 1917-1930: First efforts, first experiments The October Revolution brought about a number of changes in Russia’s housing policies, defining its development for many years to come. Two decrees of 1918, “On Abolition of Private Property in Cities” and “On Land Socialization,” gave rise to so-called communal apartments. The state-owned property began to account for a larger share of the country’s total housing stock and construction projects; the Soviet regime also took over the task of allocating dwellings among people.... According to plan, a local resident could have spent his whole life in this neighbourhood without feeling any need for something outside of it: this place had shops, nurseries, schools, an institute with dormitories, factory, and even a crematory...[hmmm sounds so familiar].
https://www.archdaily.com/898475/100-years-of-mass-housing-in-russia
I do get that convenience can be nice. I lived in a city and miss walking to the corner to buy produce. However the push for less to no homeownership along w the 15 city idea is very similar and a commie tactic. They may change the way they implement things slightly but it's always the same goal. No home ownership, co-living, no ability to sustain ones self / dependency on the government.
There was no goal to keep people in one area at all. How that worked - financing was either from a government, for districts with weared housing, either from a factory to build a district for workers families to attract workforce and have it closer. Obviously in most cases only one member of family worked on that factory, in the case of government renovation that was not a case at all. So, around half of such district had a job in another part of town. In large towns only tiny amount of district inhabitants had a job in that district. Public transport was cheap as dirt or even free, so there was no problems in having job in other parts of town.
If you are not aware, rare Soviet family didn't have a vacation house (dacha) with a piece of land. That kind of rest for urban inhabitants, with growing own food was even propagandized. Also it was possible to rent (for a very symbolic price) a piece of farmland and grow your own potatoes or whatever for food. Such recreation was encouraged by authorities.
Never heard about such plans. Yes, there was groceries, shops, kindergardens and schools in every district, but that was not to limit inhabitants, but to make their life more comfortable, to not force them to waste much time on everyday things. There was never any restrictions on choosing a school with better teachers in other district or visiting pub on another end of town. They build subway lines between districts in large towns and there always was enough public transport and roads between districts. Also, at larger scale, tourism, vacation travels, tours, cultural education by visiting different places of USSR was higly propagandized officially. Communist Party thougth that all this stuff is highly useful for better efficiency of workers and pushed narrative that Soviet citizen should visit every amasing corner of USSR. They literally encouraged people to travel. Enterprises people work on even give out vouchers for different voyages and cruises for free. And we don't even need any ID to travel, even on planes. Only in mid-70s Aeroflot began to ask for ID for plane tickets and boarding, and not by its will, but by demand of fucking ICAO for the planes tha could theoretically reach abroad. Short local routes with small planes still didn't ask for ID until USSR fall, I traveled from Kherson to Simferopol around 1987 on plane without any documents at all - just got to small field airport, bought a ticket in a booth, take a seat in airplane nearby and that's all. Just like on a bus.
I lived trough it, and I spend all my childhood exactly in such khruschevka district. Nobody, never thought, told, even rumored about any restrictions you find today in 15-minute city agenda. I just know that USSR districts was complete opposite to what is now pushed as 15-minutes cities, and even opposite to modern urban architecture as whole. Having a kindergarden and grocery nearby does not mean you was somehow limited only to that grocery and kindergarden. It was just fucking logical and convenient to have a grocery and kindergarden nearby, and that's all.
I perfectly understand the desire to somehow scare normies about 15-minute cities idea. But why use blatant lies about USSR to do that? All they know about USSR/Russia they know only from the lying mouths of USSR/Russia worst enemies. Why continue with that lying? White lies are lies too.
Really, I don't understand many western approaches to the problem of informing normies about inconvinient truths. F.e. in that case you (or whatever person that choose that approach) obviously afraid that normies will be bought with grocery and kindergarden nearby, and all that "green" bullshit. So, you are trying to somehow show that grocery and kindergarden nearby is bad. To show that it is bad you choose a lie that in awful USSR they already had groceries and kindergardens nearby. Why not to try use USSR approach as an example of much better alternative, with groceries and kindergarden nearby, with real green environment, cheap and affordable and without any restrictions? Normies like groceries and kindergardens nearby, and green parks too. And especialy they like affordable housing. They hardly will protest against 15-minute cities if you tell them that groceries and kindergarden nearby is bad. They will not see any profit in that.
To defeat the idea of 15-minute cities in the heads of normies, you have to show them a better alternative. Propose something better and show that they are tricked. And then they probably could protest and demand alternative. Show them that they could have a nice, really green district with tons of trees around, with groceries, kindergardens, schools, and all that with affordable housing, like USSR did, instead of that western urban idiocy with buildings on each other glued together along the narrow street withour single tree with enormous household prices that need hard restrictions of movement to become "green" and higher taxes and total surveillance to get grocery and kindergarden nearby. They just need to demand extermination of any land market speculation, laws about minimum land area around multiapartment building that could not be developed for other buildings and green light for pre-fabricated architecture. Not so impossible demands, and some developers with manufacturing capacity useful for pre-fabrication even could lobby them for profit. Normies see that they can get what they need without anal probes on the borders of district, anti-15-minute cities movement get support from business.
Normies don't need more scare, they need answers and solutions. While you deny to provide them and offer only scare, you will lose again and again.
So this entire article here is a lie? Hmmm. I find that hard to believe. No one is against convenience almost everywhere in the USA you have all your needs met with in 15 or 20 min even in rural America. https://www.rbth.com/history/333374-propiska-in-soviet-union
"In 1974, the Soviet government finally decided to give out passports to all categories of its citizens – this process, however, began in 1976 and was completed only at the beginning of the 1980s. But even with passports, Soviet people were restricted to their certain place of residence. Let’s see how the propiska worked."
"Naturally, immediately after the Bolsheviks took power, they banned the Tsarist passport system – but introduced the ‘employment record books’ – to control the population and seek out those who didn’t work. In 1925, the notion of propiska was first introduced into Soviet reality: the IDs the Soviet citizens had were stamped with their permanent place of residence. In 1932, the passport system was fully re-introduced, with propiska being an important feature that allowed a citizen to access government services, including medical help, at their place of residence. As we mentioned before, almost all Soviet peasants had no passports back in the 1930s. Up until the 1980s, the villagers had to ask for a special permit to leave their village and go study or work in the city."
Awful lot of information regarding restrictions and the propiska system..... like tons of info to be found. Maybe you were ignorant to what was happening around you as a kid. Idk.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union
This have nothing to do with reality. Again. Where did you get all that bullshit?
"Propiska" was kind of household ownership certificate in your ID named "passport". It meant that you have a right to live in that household and have access to local services. Some government services, like car registration, f,e. was available only at place of your living. Most public services, like medicine, education or whatever was available everywhere, regardless of that stamp in passport. In rare special cases "propiska" could limit movement only to so-called "closed" towns where top secret military factories resided. Only those who had households in such towns (and so proper "propiska" stamp in passport) was allowed to came in. Inhabitants of such towns was free to travel anywhere and in no way was restricted to leave the town. How that rare case could be used to make a conclusion about global restrictive nature of "propiska" is out of my imagination.
USSR internal passport had nothing to do with limits on movement. It was just ID and was rarely needed in everyday life. If you moved you had to get a new "propiska" stamp. It was not that government permit you to move, it was like you inform government about your new household. Really, people hate that thing, because it was time consuming, with all that lines and gathering papers with stamps in different offices, but something tell me that people hate governement services all around the world for exactly same reason, regardless of country, political system and so on.
Rural inhabitants without passports just don't needed them. There was no any need for any "permit" for anybody to travel or move anywhere since mid-30s when Jewish Bolsheviks was exterminated by Stalin. One of my grandfathers was a worker at a state farm, deep in rural area, he had no passport or any documents at all except secondary education certificate and birth certificate. Once he decided to continue his education in university in Moscow, he just laid off from farm, get train to Moscow, passed exams and become a student. He got a passport only few years later, just in case, not because it was necessary for something.
Funny, AFAIK, in USA you need SSN and/or driver license to do most things with government and even private banks and other services, and have to, say, register your car in the state you permanently live, you can't permanently live in NY and drive a car with Texas plates. How is it different from USSR internal passport system? SSN is named SSN and not a "passport" and that somehow makes SSN acceptible and soviet passport awful?
Really, I think humans don't need all that ID shit and should nor be forced to have one, nor limited to have only one, it is needed only by state, so it is a purely state problem, not a problem of individual and state could GTFO and resolve its own problem by itself.
But regarding some extraordinary evilness of Soviet passport in comparison to USA SSN, European passports/IDs and other similar stuff around the world, it is complete bullshit. It is the same thing, just named "passport" in USSR.