An Alternate History of Social Housing

An Alternate History of Social Housing By Natalya Nikolaeva © 2015 Natalya Nikolaeva An Alternate History of Social Housing The dilapidated Narkomfn building with its façade peeling, window frames rotting, and masonry crumbling is a physical manifestation of the history of social housing. The state of decay that is threatening perhaps the most infuential and ground- breaking social housing project with demolition is indicative not only of society’s abandonment of the principals espoused by the project, but also embodies the troubling history of design in social housing that it began (Fig. 1). Fig. 1. Exterior Condition of Narkomfn Communal House in 2004, designed by Moisei Ginzburg and Ignaty Milinis, built in 1928-1932, Moscow. Photography: William Veerbeek via Flickr. 1 Moisei Ginzburg’s radical proposal to house government employees was an architectural and social experiment testing avant-garde Constructivist theory. Completed in 1932 on a prominent site in Moscow, the reinforced concrete structure included multi-level apartments interlocking within a long horizontal mass raised of the ground foor on pilotis with social spaces linked through covered bridges and a communal roof garden topping the structure (Fig. 2). Ginzburg’s design included communal spaces, shared kitchens, and areas for social interaction that formed the basis for his ‘social condenser’ concept. His intention was to infuence social behavior through architectural design that challenged class hierarchies and promoted egalitarianism through overlapping spatial relationships and circulation. These intentions ultimately went untested as the completion of the building that was the genesis of these concepts aligned with Josef Stalin’s rise to power and the Narkomfn building was repurposed and altered to serve the new regime almost as soon as it was completed. Fig. 2. Exterior view of Narkomfn Communal House, designed by Moisei Ginzburg and Ignaty Milinis, 1928-1932, Moscow ( source). 2 The original intent and theory of the Narkomfn building did however spawn powerful acolytes. Le Corbusier (Charles-Édouard Jeanneret), one of the most infuential architects of the twentieth century and perhaps the most infuential architect when considering social housing design, personally studied the Narkomfn building and credited its design as inspiration for his later work, including the seminal Unite d’Habitation (Fig. 2, fg. 3). Corbusier and his peers realized a model of modern, urban, social housing that spread throughout the world and virally inhabited inner cities from Brasilia to the Bronx by the latter half of the twentieth century (Fig. 5). Fig. 3. Design of Narkomfn Fig. 4. Le Corbusier's drawing of L'unite D’habitation interior of the living unit F, 1928 (source). inspired by the Narkomfn design, 1946 (source). Fig. 5. Exterior view of Unité d’habitation, by Le Corbusier, 1946-1952, Marseille. Photography: Paul Kozlowski (source). 3 As Modern architecture dominated design, Ginzburg’s innovation mutated. The Constructivists had fused social ideals with functionalist design enabled by technological and engineering advances that both fueled and responded to the industrialization of post revolution Russia. While all of these factors bore on the creation of Narkomfn, its progeny were slowly eroded of such concepts. Governments and developers embraced industrialization for its sheer economic advantage when producing large-scale social housing, rather than exploring its potential power for social beneft. Revolutionary engineering was replaced by the most conventional repetition of simple construction. Social amenities and conveniences were omitted while building scale mushroomed and proximity to oversized neighboring towers shrunk (Fig. 6). Ginzburg’s social condenser became a social compactor, crushing the communities it was meant to foster. Fig. 6. An aerial view of The Pruitt-Igoe public housing complex, shortly after its completion in 1956, demolished in 1972, Saint Louis (source). 4 The spectacular failure of large-scale social housing projects in America such as Pruitt- Igoe or the Robert Taylor Homes has poisoned the model of social housing that began with Narkomfn, but what if the theory that underlies this model is sound (Fig. 7)? How could an alternate history of social housing have occurred, where the Constructivist’s theories were adhered to and developed rather than commandeered to serve political agendas or capitalist property markets? Had Ginzburg’s prototype been allowed to develop and its concepts spread, adhered to, and refned, the history of social housing could have enjoyed an alternate reality. Fig. 7. General view of Robert Taylor Homes, constructed in 1961-1962, demolished in 1998-2007, Chicago (source). 5 Ginzburg’s ideals for social housing could be applied again with the correct intentions, management, and application. The digital revolution is having a profound impact on society, perhaps not as radical as the social and industrial revolution that germinated the theories of the Constructivists, but still presenting an opportunity to change architecture’s abilities to serve society. Digital design and fabrication could ofer the means of mass customization that mirrors the impact of mass production while avoiding the alienation that is inherent to standardized designs. A single model need not be grafted on to swathes of land with the potential to produce site specifc and unique architectures becoming more economical due to more fexible fabrication processes. Industry can again ofer means to elevate and improve housing, not through volume but through advances in production that ofer the ability to tailor materials to the design of a particular place (Fig. 8). Fig. 8. Sugar Hill Housing Project that includes afordable housing, a Preschool, and the Sugar Hill Children’s Museum of Art & Storytelling in Harlem, 2014, New York. Photography: Ed Reeve (source). 6 Contemporary engineering could inform the creation of the inspiring structures dreamt but not possible in the Ginzburg’s time. The use of reinforced concrete for the Narkomfn building was cutting edge and daring. It elevated the construction to something unique and special compared to the timber and masonry construction that prevailed at the time in its context. Ofering this architecture for the purpose of housing public servants belied a commitment to housing that has long since vanished, but need not continue. Opportunities for professional development and employment devoid from past social housing could be made available with access to knowledge prevalent through the digital world. While Narkomfn included a library and a gymnasium, social housing that followed rarely included similar programs for residents’ development. Greater access to learning promises to ofer increased opportunity for integrating professional development into social housing. The needed political and social backing for these projects must be realized, while continuing commitment to maintenance and support are also required for advances to be made in social housing. However, after decades of failure, an alternate model of social housing is now possible. An alternate history for social housing can now begin, based on the Constructivist concept of social housing imagined a century ago (Fig. 9). Fig. 9. The Narkomfn building in the 1930s, Moscow. Photography: PD photo taken in USSR before 1945 (source). 7.

Load more