On February, 27th the European University hosted a presentation by Bart Goldhoorn, which took place as part of the third conference of the “Second World Urbanity” project. Like the project itself, Goldhoorn’s presentation was an attempt to understand the experience of “socialist urbanism,” the mass urban development of the Soviet period, and much more.
A particular feature of socialist urbanism is its massive residential construction projects. Born during the communist era, this type of construction continues to dominate even today, in spite of the fact that communism has been replaced by capitalism. Why do we continue to build based on principles that seemed correct fifty years ago and not try to change anything? To answer this question we should understand the experience of mass development in socialist and capitalist cities, which offer essentially two models for planning residential development: “modular” and “designer” cities.
The “modular” city is, to a large degree, a project of the Soviet city (i.e. “Khrushchyevki”). It is based on the use of modular units that are reproduced uniformly throughout the city space. Modular construction is based on mass production, though it has its roots in the era of constructivist architecture. Certain aspects of it, however, were laid out even prior to the Revolution in the process of creating “model projects.” Modular construction is quick, cheap and predictable; a way for architects and planners to transform cities in developing countries that constantly require more housing.
The “designer” city is an alternative project represented primarily in Western European cities. In the 1960s these cities were also faced with the need to build fast and low-cost housing accessible to the public. However, by the 1970s such construction was already disavowed from the modernist project. This led to the creation of a completely different type of urbanism based on increasing private capital and the privatization of land. The designer city is characterized by contextual architecture and its diverse forms. Diversity and the ability to adapt to various demands and environmental conditions have allowed this project to become one of the main ways for implementing housing in urban areas.
Currently, however, both “modular” and “designer” cities are experiencing a moment of crisis. The modular project fails to make a city diverse. Instead, with the onset of capitalist relations in urban spaces, it has reproduced inequality and a discourse of insecurity, which is presented in “accessories” to the standard architecture in the form of grates and fences.
The designer city, in turn, has become too expensive and unpredictable way to build cities, and doesn’t allow for more long-term planning and the degree of unified space required by capitalist cities. Consequently, there is now demand for a new paradigm of urban planning and construction, called “open urbanism.”
This principle is best described through the example of the many fashion houses that offer clothing tailor-made to their clients’ sizes and desires. However since this service is expensive, there is universal system of parameters for the human body that allows the majority of people to choose cheap and desirable clothing based on general characteristics, which we call sizes. According to this principle, a new type of urbanism will be built on creating various basic, contextually appropriate sets of architectural forms that the problem of both modular housing and unpredictable, “uncomfortable” designer construction will be solved. “Open” urbanism will allow us to solve the limitations of these two types of urban planning along with the contradictions that arise when choosing between them.
Anastasiya Golovneva
