More than a half of a century ago, A. H. Maslow, who was an American physiologist famous for founding the ‘theory of psychological health predicated on fulfilling innate human needs in priority, culminating in self-actualisation’ 1 ; defined housing (=shelter) as one of the most basic and fundamental human needs and demands in a place, which provides an inhabitant with warmth, a place to sleep and a sort of protection from the rest of the world – security ( Hierarchy of Needs, 1943 -1954 )2. All the other needs grouped by Maslow into psychological and self-fulfilment, are becoming desired by the person if only he/she has fulfilled the very first basic level. Consequently, we could say and the history proves that the housing in a form of providing a ‘shelter’ , fulfilment of the basic needs of society, ‘is of greater political consequence and reason than most other areas of government policy’.3
One of the most vivid examples from the past century, when the housing became one of the major and urgent social problems is the post World War II period. The war caused a huge housing shortage all over the world, many houses were either destroyed by bombing or turned into slums. Different solutions in a form of decrees and acts were developed by the governments in order to recover the countries form the five destructive years of war and overcome the housing crises. Those decrees and acts were often at the very centre of the whole policy of the government of that time. It is crucial to understand the reasons behind the housing policies: why the solution to the housing shortage was in such an emphasis by politicians and what they were tying to achieve by placing it as a core of a welfare state. Welfare state is ‘a system whereby the state undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need’4 . Sociologist T.H. Marshall introduced the concept of social rights (housing) being not the right based on a class or a need, but on a citizenship – welfare rights (Citizenship and Social Class, 1949). Therefore, the housing is a basic human need, which should be provided by the government as a part of a welfare state system.
In order to answer the question why the governments were relying on the solution of the housing shortage as their main means of recovering the country from the consequences of the war, it is necessary to define what the government is and what does the govern mean. According to the series of lectures by the French philosopher M. Foucault at the Collège de France Security, Territory, Population in 1977-1978, the governmentality is a concept, which could be understood as the way governments were trying to produce the citizen,
1 Times, S. (2017). Dr. Abraham Maslow, Founder Of Humanistic Psychology, Dies. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1970/06/10/archives/dr-abraham-maslow- founder-of-humanistic-psychology-dies.html [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017]
2 Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and personality. New York: Longman.
3 Dorling, D. (2017). 'Housing has become the defining economic issue of our times' | Danny Dorling. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/19/ ousing-economic-issue-financial-crisis-property-tax-owning-home [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
4 Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2017). welfare state – definition of welfare state in English | Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/welfare_state [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
who would be best suitable for fulfilling the government’s policies.5 Furthermore, it might be the organised practice through which subjects are directed in terms of their behaviour and acting. At this point, it is necessary to remind that Maslow mentioned the shelter (=housing) being a basic need of the humanity, Foucault, in its tern, stated that ‘ “to govern” has much wider meaning of supporting by providing means of subsistence” 6 Therefore, the concept of post-war social housing could be seen as an organised practice with which governments were trying ‘to direct, move forward, to move oneself on a track, a road’ 7 . The social housing policies were aimed for providing the means of people’s subsistence, in a way satisfying their basic human needs, ‘ their food, their resources and their wealth ’ 8 by giving the people a warm and safe place to sleep, to recover from the consequences of war. The final goal of which was to make those people members of the ‘new society’ , citizens who will suit to fulfilling the new major government’s policies. This is why, the essay is going to explore to what extent the social housing is a way to govern people individually and as a whole society.
In order to see different approaches to the way of governing people via provision of this welfare right, the essay will examine two different models of housing policies in the post- war era. One the one hand, the socialist policy of USSR under the rule of Nikita Khrushchev, who introduced an architectural reform, which was particularly successful as a rapid solution of the housing shortage – ‘108 million people moved into new housing between 1956 and 1965’ 9. And on the other hand, the post war house-building boom in British liberal democracy under the Clement Attlee’s Labor government, which ‘built more than a million homes, 80% of which were council houses, largely to replace those destroyed by Hitler’ 10 and when the boom continued in 1951 under the Conservatives, who returned to power. In order to put into context the development of housing policies of these two countries, recovering after the World War II, it is necessary to trace back the history of their emergence.
As it was mentioned before, in 1950’s both USSR and Britain were experiencing the worst housing shortages of the twentieth century.11 In USSR it was also an impact of ‘most brutal
5Senellart, M., Ewald, F. and Fontana, A. (n.d.). MICHEL FOUCAULT Security, Territory, Population LECTURES AT THE COLLÈGE DE FRANCE, 1977-78. 1st ed. macmillan, chapter 5.
6 ibid., page 166
7 ibid., page 166
8 ibid., page 167
9 Taubman, W. (2006). The Khrushchev Era. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10 BBC News. (2017). A history of social housing – BBC News. [online] Available at: http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14380936 [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
11Hatherley, O. (2017). Moscow's suburbs may look monolithic, but the stories they tell are not. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/12/moscows- suburbs-may-look-monolithic-but-the-stories-they-tell-are-not [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
and fastest’ industrial revolution under Stalin12, which changed 80% rural Russian Empire of 1917’s between 1929 and 1940 : ’Moscow filled with rural migrants fleeing a famine- ridden countryside to work in the new factories’ . ibid. Therefore, the rural migrants lived in poor conditions such as barracks, basements, tents or even trenches. This housing shortage was almost under the government control, but the war made millions of people homeless again. However, Stalin’s attempts change this situation were never successful. Enormous resources were spent on construction of luxury hotels or ‘grace-and-favour flats for artists and bureaucrats’ ibid. . This situation prompted the first independent act of Nikita Khrushchev, who became General Secretary in 1953 after Stalin’s death 13, “On Architectural Excess” (4th of November 1955). In this act Khrushchev was criticising the idea of respectable residential streets of the Stalin era, which did not solve the housing problem. Most of the main points of that act were already expressed by Khrushchev in his Industrialised Building speech at the National Conference of Builders, Architects, Workers in the Construction Materials and Manufacture of Construction and Roads Machinery Industries, and Employees of Design and Research and Development Organisations on 7th of December, 1954. He was stressing ‘the need of construction without frills’ 14 , in contrast to Stalin’s policy. Khrushchev was highlighting the need of industrialising the construction sector, increasing the use of new building materials and techniques. Therefore, the act of 1955 was mainly calling for a new approach in architecture, which was supposed to be ‘inherently simple, austere in form and economical to build’ , it also suggested ‘the move from communal to single-family apartments’ 15 and therefore formed a goal to build: ‘the form is concrete and the function is housing’. ibid. All of these targets were planned to be achieved by the use of prefabricated structures or monolithic concrete.16 Consequently , Khrushchev’s housing reform played a crucial role in 1950’s – 1960’s in the reconfiguration of state-society relations after the former housing policies of Stalin. ‘Unlike the single-family dwellings built for the Stalin-era elites, housing was distributed under Khrushchev to the one social group – the family- that cut across all other social divisions’ 17 , which introduced a new culture to Soviet citizens.
12ibid.
13Khrushchev, N. (1954). Industrialised Building Speech, 1954. [online] Volume. Available at: http://
volumeproject.org/industrialised-building-speech-1954/ [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
14Davies, R. and Ilic, M. (2010). From Krushchev (1935-6) to Krushchev (1956-64): Construction
Policy Compared. Political Economy Research in Soviet Archives.
15Zubovich-Eady, K. (2013). To the New Shore: Soviet Architecture's Journey from Classicism to
Standardisation. 1st ed. University of California, Berkley.
16Khrushchev, N. (1954). Industrialised Building Speech, 1954. [online] Volume. Available at: http:// volumeproject.org/industrialised-building-speech-1954/ [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
17Zubovich-Eady, K. (2013). To the New Shore: Soviet Architecture's Journey from Classicism to Standardisation. 1st ed. University of California, Berkley.
At the same time in Britain ‘the election of 1945 saw a Labour government voted in and housing policy was central to their welfare reforms in their manifesto’ 18 . Aneurin Bevan, the Minister of Health, who was responsible for the development of the housing program, relied it on the local authorities more rather than the private sector. The pressure on the solution of the housing shortage ‘came in the form of soldiers returning from war and rising working class expectations as a result of Labour’s promises’ 19 . The solution of housing shortage in a form of a rapid construction of prefabricated temporary housing came much earlier than in USSR – in 1945 shortly after the War ended, the first ‘prefabs’ were already completed, under the initiative of the Prime Minister of that time – Winston Churchill as a part of the ‘the Temporary Housing and Emergency Factory Made Homes programmes’20. However, ‘despite the construction of 156,622 prefabs the country still faced an acute housing shortage and waiting lists soared in urban areas’21 . The problem got worse also due to the shortage of materials and harsh weather conditions in 1947. The peak of the production occurred in Bristol, 1955, where 43 families each week were given the brand new homes. Although, this housing policy was succeeding in cutting down the housing shortage, the cost of the construction was needed to be brought down as well. That is how a new form of construction ‘PRC’ (Pre-cast Reinforced Concrete) was introduced , which reminds the Khrushchev’s housing act in USSR due to the fast assembly and mass production. The major role was played by the ‘Country and Town Planning Act’ of 1947, which introduced the concept of ‘general needs construction’ 22 , provided a new vision of estates, where “the working man, the doctor and the clergyman will live in close proximity to each other” (Aneurin Bevan, the Minister of Health and Housing). Therefore, this act was suggesting the use of housing as an instrument of shaping a new way of living and values, suitable for the government's vision of a new society, similarly to Khrushchev’s plan on USSR.
18 University of the West England. (n.d.). The History of Council housing: Meeting the post-war housing shortage. [online] Available at: https://fet.uwe.ac.uk/conweb/house_ages/council_housing/ section5.htm [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
19 ibid.
20Prefabmuseum.uk. (2017). History – The Prefab Museum. [online] Available at: http:// www.prefabmuseum.uk/history/ [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
21 ibid.
22Designing the Urban Commons. (2017). Southwyck Open House. [online] Available at: http:// designingtheurbancommons.org/gallery/southwyck-open-house/ [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
This overview provides us with an understanding of the background, from which the policies of social housing of two different states were developed. They could be compared due to the use of social housing as an instrument of recovering the country from the post- war crisis. Most importantly, both states were following a broader goal of shaping a new society via creating a certain community and behaviour, controlled by the provision of the houses. For example, one of the pioneering examples of USSR’s ‘experiment in industrialised housing in history, where homes would become mass-produced commodities’ 23 is the residential district in Moscow – Novye Cheryomushki , built in 1955 – 1959. This district is an example of a successful response of 1950’s to the housing shortage. ‘The repetitiveness of the block became a cliche of the time, as builders replicated identical housing units in recurrent micro-districts around major cities with little attention to the particularities of the diverse contexts across the Soviet Union’. 24
However, as it was mentioned before the concept of mass-produced prefabricated housing was introduced in Britain much earlier than in USSR and had a completely different concept. The British version of the industrialised housing was a totally prefabricated on a factory housing unit – a ‘mod-cons cottage’, or ‘a bungalow’ with the fitted facilities such as ‘kitchens and wardrobes, indoor toilet and bathroom with heated towel rail, constant hot water, a vented heating system – and a fridge!’ 25 The main difference, is that those ‘prefabs’ were aimed to be a temporary housing solution, scheduled to last for 10-15 years and they were located ‘on bomb sites and open spaces including parks, in rural locations, towns and villages’ 26 Therefore, it would be unequal to compare the USSR’s prefabricated district Novye Cheryomushki (figure 1) to, for example, the largest remaining population of prefab housing stock in Bristol. It is more suitable to compare the so-called British ‘pioneering concrete panel construction’ 27 and icon of the post-war architecture – the Alton Estate (figure 2), built in 1952 – 1960, which was later described as ‘probably the finest low-cost housing development in the world’.28
23 Hatherley, O. (2017). Moscow's suburbs may look monolithic, but the stories they tell are not. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/12/moscows- suburbs-may-look-monolithic-but-the-stories-they-tell-are-not [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
24Zubovich-Eady, K. (2013). To the New Shore: Soviet Architecture's Journey from Classicism to Standardisation. 1st ed. University of California, Berkley.
25Prefabmuseum.uk. (2017). History – The Prefab Museum. [online] Available at: http:// www.prefabmuseum.uk/history/ [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
26 ibid.
27Wandsworth Guardian. (2017). Memory Lane: Mixed fortunes of Roehampton's Alton Estate. [online] Available at: http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/ 8091289.Memory_Lane__Mixed_fortunes_of_Roehampton_s_Alton_Estate/ [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
28Harwood, E. and Davies, J. (n.d.). England's post-war listed buildings.
The district Novye Cheryomushki and the Alton Estate not only share the timeframe of their development, which is between 1950-1960, but also have strong principles, suggested by governments regarding their construction. In USSR, the development of the district was entrusted to the Special Architectural Design Bureau (SACB) – the research and design institute, established within the Academy of Construction and Architecture, specifically for the experimental construction of the houses of the new type. Architects and the curator of the project N. Osterman were asked to ‘study the problems of construction economy…to think about the cost per square metre of space’ 29 , with an aim for creating the most economical and technological design. In Britain, the scheme of the Estate was developed under the control of LCC – the local municipal authority for the County of London, and its housing policy. The crucial principles for LCC were ‘rehouse people at lower densities, in the suburbs where possible…new estates should provide a mix of different housing types and community facilities’ .30 Consequently, in order to understand the relationship between these two principles of social housing and the government’s ideas of shaping new societies, it is necessary to study the context of their construction in depth.
1. the district Novye Cheryomushki 2. the Alton Estate
29 Zubovich-Eady, K. (2013). To the New Shore: Soviet Architecture's Journey from Classicism to Standardisation. 1st ed. University of California, Berkley.p.23
30 Harwood, E. and Davies, J. (n.d.). England's post-war listed buildings.
The location of the construction within the city was one of the most crucial features considered by the government authorities. Both USSR’s and British housing schemes were developed in the suburbs of Moscow and London. The district Novye Cheryomushki was founded on the former site of the village Cherymushki and lately joined to the city of Moscow in 1956 (figure 3).
3. the village Cherymushki, 1954
The Alton estate was built as a part of slum clearance program in Hammersmith, Fulham and Shepherds Bush. The site was a suburban district Roehampton next to the Richmond Park. In contrast to the district Novye Cheryomushki, which was built almost from scratch, the Roehampton area had social facilities nearby: the Queen Mary’s Hospital (1915) , the Richmond Park Golf Club (1924) , Manresa House and Georgian villas. (figure 4) ‘The project was divided into two phases with Manresa House in the middle. The Victorian villa neighbourhood became the Portsmouth Road Estate, later the Alton East (1952-1955). The area west of Manresa House became the Roehampton Lane Estate, Alton West after completion(1955-1959)’.31
The main distinction between the Alton estate and Novye Cheryomushki is that the scheme of the first one was mostly focusing on the housing, as it had social facilities nearby, but at the same time, it was very disconnected from the rest of the city, an
‘island’ (figure 5). Novye Cheryomushki was planned as an independent district, including the construction of social facilities in the neighbourhood.Therefore, we can make an assumption that the government authorities were intending to create a specific local environment on those ‘islands’ of social housing, as they were isolated from the rest of the city.
31 Alton Baseline Report
4. the local facilities, Roehampton neighbourhood, 1950
5. the Alton estate, disconnected from the rest of the city – ‘island’
6. the model of residential district Novye Cheryomushki, Blocks : 9 (on the left), 11, 12
7. the plan of Block 9, Novye Cheryomushki (open inner zones highlighted)
What was that local environment? For example, the plan for the residential district of Novye Cheryomushki consisted of several blocks, which formed micro-districts, separated by the boundaries of major roads. (figure 6) ‘Block 9 of the Moscow’s Novye Cheryomushki district was the first large-scale experiment in the industrialisation of construction to be completed under Khrushchev’s new initiatives…and set a new standard for residential design in USSR’32 The plan is composed of ‘thirteen four-storey buildings, three eight-storey buildings, a kindergarten, a school, a movie theatre, a cafeteria and two stores’ and planned to accommodate nearly 3,000 residents. 33 The main feature of the block 9 is open inner zones, the so-called ‘car-free areas’, which also responded to the concept of the ‘planning parameters of short distance…so that the maximum distance to community facilities was not allowed to exceed 500 m’. 34 (figure 7)
Therefore, the inhabitants had no need to leave the territory of the micro-district, as they had all the social facilities within the walking distance and shared them with neighbours. This exemplifies how the Socialist idea of equality and friendship , participation in the life of community and sharing its welfare was introduced through architecture. The ‘free, irregular grouping of buildings surrounded by vegetation’ 35 , the absence of roads, limit of pavement, were intending to remind the rural life, suggesting a feeling of freedom; and also to incorporate it with benefits of urban life – the access to culture and work.
32 Richard Anderson
33 ibid.
34Meuser, P., Zadorin, D. and Knowles, C. (n.d.). Towards a typology of Soviet mass housing.
35Thomas, E. (2013). Post-war architecture in a Cold War climate: The building of domestic architecture in Moscow from 1945-64. [online] Available at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/ sites/arthistory/migrated/documents/2013thomas.pdf [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
According to architect R. Rogers ‘the Alton Estate is a living proof that you can create a totally modern environment and keep a strong sense of community’36. There are ‘terraced houses, tower blocks, maisonettes and old people’s homes’ 37 on the same site, which is an early example of the mixed development plan, fulfilling different needs of society. We may assume that through the mixed development, the government was trying to create a happy community, consisting of different social groups, as the British society had a strong class division in contrast to the Soviet equality. The Alton Estate was built in two main phases and called ‘East’ and ‘West’.( figure 8) The Alton East was developed by a team under Rosemary Stjernstedt, ‘they placed point blocks of eleven storeys, inspired by Swedish models…developed the lower slopes with houses and four-storey maisonettes…’ 38. The Alton West was designed by a younger generation of architects – Howell, Killick, Patridge and Amis, who were inspired by Le Corbusier’s Unité d’habitation. ‘There is same variety of maisonettes and houses, with shops and a library, but the valley site is laid out more formally, and everything is uniformly clad in storey-high concrete panels’.39 Although, the development of two phases of the estate was ‘almost as if a theoretical debate was argued out in practise’40 , in both phases the main emphasis was put on the open space. ‘White towers are marching across the soft green landscape – very English tradition, as far as the landscape is concerned’ 41. Through the emphasis of the English tradition, the council was creating a feeling of own neighbourhood for people and incorporating it with an idea of a new world.
8. The Alton Estate:
East to the bottom of the image, West at the top
36Building Sites , Series 4 , Alton estate. (n.d.). United Kingdom: www.bbc.co.uk. 37 ibid.
38 Harwood, E. and Davies, J. (n.d.). England's post-war listed buildings.
39 ibid.
40 ibid.
41Building Sites , Series 4 , Alton estate. (n.d.). United Kingdom: www.bbc.co.uk.
On the scale of apartments, both case studies show that the flats were spatially limited , due to the intention towards the most efficient and economical construction. In the Alton Estate, there are many variations of the apartment’s plans due to the five types of housing on the site. However, all of them highlighted the importance of the English tradition in different ways, which was made for increasing the sense of community among different social groups. For example in the maisonettes and houses, the tradition is reflected through materiality – ‘a familiar combination of red brick, white window frames, timber panelling and pitched roofs’ .42 (figure 9) The eleven-storey towers have two-storey flats, with a living room, kitchen, balcony with a view to the landscape on the first floor, and a bedrooms on the second, which is a reference to traditional house.( figure 10)
10. The Alton Estate: plan of the two-storey apartment 9. The Alton Estate: houses and maisonettes
In the block 9 of the micro-district Novye Cheryomushki, the idea of Soviet equality was enhanced by plan of the apartments, where the number of 9 square metres per person was predetermined. ( figure 11 ) Consequently, there were developed series of design for different families, which will be given the amount of space equal to the number of family members. The room could not be dedicated for one special activity i.e. sleeping due to the fact that it was considered as an ‘excess’, therefore the bedroom had to be used as a living room during the day. This resulted in a need of designing multifunctional compact furniture: sliding dining tables, armchair-beds and sofa-beds, table-storage, which usually had a single design option. ( figure 12) Therefore, the standardisation of the flats and furniture was fulfilling the idea of class equality in the Soviet society.
42 Modernarchitecturelondon.com. (2017). Alton East, Roehampton | modern architecture london. [online] Available at: http://modernarchitecturelondon.com/buildings/alton-east.php [Accessed 22 Mar. 2017].
Family of 2 adults 18 square metres
Family of 3 adults, 1 child 36 square metres
Family of 1 adult, 1 teenager, 1 child
27 square metres
Family of 2 adults, 1 teenager, 1 child 36 square metres
Family of 1 adult,1 teenager
Family of 2 adults,1 teenager
Family of 3 adults 27 square metres
Family of 2 adults, 1 child 27 square metres
11. Block 9, micro-district Novye Cheryomushki Scheme for housing families
12. Catalogue of compact furniture number 3: table-storage
Thereby, the overview of both Alton Estate and the block 9 of the micro-district Novye Cheryomushki provides us with two different examples of using social housing for the purpose of cultivating specific ideas and behaviour among inhabitants. This was achieved mainly trough the isolation of neighbourhoods and guiding the daily life of the community via the layout of buildings and design of the apartments.These examples show the different approach of two systems on fulfilment of people's basic need in shelter according to Maslow.The essay studied how the Soviet system created environment for its population, in accordance with its idea of social equality and collectiveness. At the same time, in Britain housing proved to emphasise the idea of individuality and memory of the english tradition. This topic could be explored further by comparing interiors of the apartments or studying the long-term impacts of using architecture as a tool for shaping the societies in USSR and Britain , which might contribute to the depth of study.