How Soviet Kitchens Became Hotbeds Of Dissent And Culture(npr.org)
npr.org
How Soviet Kitchens Became Hotbeds Of Dissent And Culture
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/05/27/314961287/how-soviet-kitchens-became-hotbeds-of-dissent-and-culture
9 comments
Turns out there is a wikipedia page for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka
>> "They were horribly built; you could hear your neighbor"
Pretty much every single apartment complex in the US I lived in (MA and CA).
Pretty much every single apartment complex in the US I lived in (MA and CA).
The article then claims that these kitchens were private spaces. Doesn't that seem like a contradiction? If you can hear your neighbours then you can surely hear them playing Elvis.
You can hear them, so what? Listening to music wasn't any crime. Possession of some samizdat surely was; but reading books is not the loudest hobby.
Loud arguing lands somewhere in between. Still, what choice would you have?
Loud arguing lands somewhere in between. Still, what choice would you have?
[deleted]
Actually my experience growing up in the USSR was completely different- you couldn't hear your neighbors because the walls were so thick (and not just our apartment, but all apartments that I remember), that was one of the surprising things about moving the US- hearing your neighbors through the walls.
In my experience those houses were mainly compared to traditional well build stone houses, that's how they got bad reputation.
I still live in an apartment of the type referred to in the story. These are indeed quite sound-proof and I found the remark surprising in the article. I would say the main sound leakage in the default design are the electric socket holes in the wall, although not much. Still, these holes were filled with foam when I moved in and now everything is rather sound-proof.
You have probably been lucky to live in either Stalinkas or buildings built before the revolution. Buildings built before the revolution were mostly constructed for nobility therefore of a very good quality. Building build during the Stalin era(stalinkas) were also of the superior quality(and still are highly valued at Russia's housing market). Stalin's idea was that working class is a new nobility and therefore should live as the nobility. However construction rates were so slow, that by the time Kruschev came to power people were still living in wooden barracks sharing them between multiple families. Kruschevkas were never intended to be permanent housing, but rather temporary solution for the housing problem. It was intended to replace them with better quality housing once all Soviets had roof over their head. Which unfortunately never happened
"They were called khrushchevkas — five-story buildings made of prefabricated concrete panels. "They were horribly built; you could hear your neighbor," says Edward Shenderovich, an entrepreneur and Russian poet. The apartments had small toilets, very low ceilings and very small kitchens." <- from the article.
I grew up in a 5 story prefabricated concrete Krushevka in Moscow. This is my experience:
Krushevkas may have been derided as ugly pox upon the cities, but at rubles to bubliks they got people out of communal apartments. Many families were able to live in their own spaces for the first time.
I grew up in a 5 story prefabricated concrete Krushevka in Moscow. This is my experience:
[ ] you could hear your neighbor
[ ] very small toilets
[ ] very small kitchens
[X] small toilets
[X] low ceilings
[X] small kitchens
Krushevkas may have been derided as ugly pox upon the cities, but at rubles to bubliks they got people out of communal apartments. Many families were able to live in their own spaces for the first time.
Same here. Lived in both an older 40s and 50s 5 stories building. Small narrow hallways and windows. Build mostly from ridiculous over-sized and thick bricks. But very sturdy. Don't remember hearing neighbors unless they raised an extreme ruckus (usually getting drunk and yelling at each other or kids stumping screaming while playing).
Then lived a newer (built in the early 90s concrete block 9 story building). Much nicer, big windows, larger rooms. Wall not as thick but still very sturdy and don't remember hearing my neighbours same as above. Windows were letting cold air through in the winter and elevator kept breaking often but sound proofing was find and no cracks or structural issues that I remember.
Then lived a newer (built in the early 90s concrete block 9 story building). Much nicer, big windows, larger rooms. Wall not as thick but still very sturdy and don't remember hearing my neighbours same as above. Windows were letting cold air through in the winter and elevator kept breaking often but sound proofing was find and no cracks or structural issues that I remember.
Genuine khrushevkas were made exclusively out of prefab concrete slabs. Each wall was one slab, the ceiling was one or two slabs per room and the sound isolation issue was less due to the thickness of the slabs and more due to poor fitting of the slabs or bad sealing of the joints.
>Moscow
There's your problem (or lack thereof).
The provincial cities had it worse.
There's your problem (or lack thereof).
The provincial cities had it worse.
Quite the opposite. Where I grew up they were built from large bricks, or concrete, and they were lots more sturdy and better built that man homes in US that are build from wood and covered in reinforced card-board (what others call "drywall").
I had relatives from back there look at my typical American built house and comment "oh nice hut, like a summer dacha or something". Thinking about it, I guess it is a ridiculously expensive wooden hut, but oh well. That is the standard here.
I had relatives from back there look at my typical American built house and comment "oh nice hut, like a summer dacha or something". Thinking about it, I guess it is a ridiculously expensive wooden hut, but oh well. That is the standard here.
It is suprising how little is known about private life before khrushchev era.
I am currently reading a book called the Whisperers[1] which chronicles what really went on "behind the scenes" in Stalin's russia
http://www.amazon.com/Whisperers-Private-Life-Stalins-Russia...
I am currently reading a book called the Whisperers[1] which chronicles what really went on "behind the scenes" in Stalin's russia
http://www.amazon.com/Whisperers-Private-Life-Stalins-Russia...
Really good book. However, it's perhaps the only book I couldn't finish because I found it so upsetting.
I love that they turned used xrays into bootleg vinyl recordings. Disrupt! :P
> In a country with little or no place to gather for the free expression of ideas and no place to talk politics without fear of repression
Edward Snowden revealed that the USA was monitoring its citizens and storing that data in a way that far outstrips anything the KGB was ever capable of. Should he fear repression? He should, the government wants to lock him up and throw away the key for revealing this, just like they did to Manning for what he revealed. Actually, NPR spends most of its time bashing Snowden.
They seem gaga for dissidence in some foreign country, in a government that hasn't existed for over two decades though.
Edward Snowden revealed that the USA was monitoring its citizens and storing that data in a way that far outstrips anything the KGB was ever capable of. Should he fear repression? He should, the government wants to lock him up and throw away the key for revealing this, just like they did to Manning for what he revealed. Actually, NPR spends most of its time bashing Snowden.
They seem gaga for dissidence in some foreign country, in a government that hasn't existed for over two decades though.
NPR bashing Snowden? Don't listen to it, but I'm very surprised.
> just like they did to Manning for what he revealed.
She, not he
She, not he
'he' at the time, dysphoria nonwithstanding.
That's not how it works, bigot
Referring to someone's past actions using their preferred pronouns at the time of those actions is bigotry? Gosh, better inform all those contemporary news articles that they're retroactively disrespectful.
Without defending the NSA excesses, the difference is in the repression, not the monitoring. There is little evidence that the NSA monitoring was used for repression of citizens, and even less evidence of the sort of repression that was rampant in the Soviet bloc.
nice blindfolds you have there. Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the largest prison population by far among rich countries, institutionalized rape, drone executions without a shred of legal process, militarized police and you're still making excuses for what was not so long ago the beacon of modern civilization and democracy.
Now compare things you mentioned with a social climate where the entire country is one big prison, North Korea style.
Can't imagine life like that? Yeah, I thought so.
Can't imagine life like that? Yeah, I thought so.
Do you think that people who want fundamental change in the US are not harassed and repressed, and their activities criminalized?
I don't feel repressed in any way and I have the freedom of speech, by law, that repressed people do not. Comparing those two is an insult to those that lived in the Soviet era.
You are advocating for fundamental change in America? Or just some tax cuts?
Mostly, things are under control here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-...
Mostly, things are under control here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-...
Did you seriously just link to an interview in very popular, US-hosted website with a US-based (presumably tenured) professor at one of the best universities in the world (did I mention US based?) in which he lays out in great detail his public academic research on how he considers the US an oligarchy -- as evidence of repression and harassment of those advocating for fundamental change?
Do you understand the words repression and harassment? Do you understand that if he had ventured into such research (much less published it, much much less been interviewed about it in a publication), he (and his wife) would at best have lost their jobs. Probably reassigned a new flat of the sort described in the article, in a remote area (docile academics often enjoyed access to privileged accommodation). Worst case, re-education in a Gulag.
The fact that the US isn't by a long shot perfect doesn't make it Soviet Russia.
Do you understand the words repression and harassment? Do you understand that if he had ventured into such research (much less published it, much much less been interviewed about it in a publication), he (and his wife) would at best have lost their jobs. Probably reassigned a new flat of the sort described in the article, in a remote area (docile academics often enjoyed access to privileged accommodation). Worst case, re-education in a Gulag.
The fact that the US isn't by a long shot perfect doesn't make it Soviet Russia.
> ...doesn't make it Soviet Russia.
High standards.
High standards.
Moving goalposts.
Excuse me. It seems like you are the one assuming "Not as bad as the Soviet Union" is good enough. My family is from an FSU country, and they would not settle for that.
GP: > Edward Snowden revealed that the USA was monitoring its citizens and storing that data in a way that far outstrips anything the KGB was ever capable of. Should he fear repression?
Me: > There is little evidence that the NSA monitoring was used for repression of citizens, and even less evidence of the sort of repression that was rampant in the Soviet bloc
You: > Do you think that people who want fundamental change in the US are not harassed and repressed, and their activities criminalized?
The context of the discussion is literally about whether the US is better than the Soviet Union. And is is, by a huge margin.
It's not about settling, it's about not derailing a discussion about NSA overreach and legitimate democratic issues in the US (and most other western countries) by making hyperbolic comparisons that aren't even in the same league.
But even then, the article you linked to is not even remotely evidence of anyone being "harassed and repressed, and their activities criminalized" in any sense, Soviet or otherwise. To the contrary, it's evidence that there exists freedom to openly discuss big and fundamental issues of government without fearing repression.
Me: > There is little evidence that the NSA monitoring was used for repression of citizens, and even less evidence of the sort of repression that was rampant in the Soviet bloc
You: > Do you think that people who want fundamental change in the US are not harassed and repressed, and their activities criminalized?
The context of the discussion is literally about whether the US is better than the Soviet Union. And is is, by a huge margin.
It's not about settling, it's about not derailing a discussion about NSA overreach and legitimate democratic issues in the US (and most other western countries) by making hyperbolic comparisons that aren't even in the same league.
But even then, the article you linked to is not even remotely evidence of anyone being "harassed and repressed, and their activities criminalized" in any sense, Soviet or otherwise. To the contrary, it's evidence that there exists freedom to openly discuss big and fundamental issues of government without fearing repression.
With not much other public spaces, where else will you go? There were a few counter-culture places in Moscow and Leningrad for the select, and kitchens for everyone else.
Still, it is impressive how viral some culture was. With nothing more than tape recorders and word-of-mouth, some soviet rock bands still had millions of listeners and could easily fill a stadium for a gig (and indeed did a bit later, when it became possible). Same for books and poetry.
This internet-level virability is no longer seen. Today you can't do much on the word-of-mouth - cultural space is too crowded.
Still, it is impressive how viral some culture was. With nothing more than tape recorders and word-of-mouth, some soviet rock bands still had millions of listeners and could easily fill a stadium for a gig (and indeed did a bit later, when it became possible). Same for books and poetry.
This internet-level virability is no longer seen. Today you can't do much on the word-of-mouth - cultural space is too crowded.
Reminds me of Txoko's, the cooking clubs which were basically the only place Basques could congregate under Franco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Txoko#History
Nobody else feels that recording music on exposed x-ray film is very cool?
I think its totally cool, and I've been trying to work out how to do it myself for the last 10 minutes .. if anyone has any tips about this, I'd love to know. There's a few lung xray's waiting for my industrial tracks in the drawer .. ;)
You'll need a recording gramophone like this one: http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/164f/
I teach English in a technical college, mainly to construction majors. I'm surprised but happy that I've come across great construction-related articles via Hacker News. the New Bay Bridge, in California (unsafe, late, and over budget); the CitiCorp Center in Manhattan (was in danger of collapsing); and this one.
'Khruschevkis' have been built since ca. 1959 through in fact, late 1970s (and very little, mainly in Moscow, were built before Khruschev was ousted), and they actually had thin walls through which you can hear. Most people in Khruschev's era lived in wooden temporary buildings (many of them stand till now, completely uninhabitable) built right after the war, or dormitories, or communal apartments (which were build in Stalin era and were normally very well built, except a family got a single room in 6-8 room apartment). Very few, upper class people could get a whole apartment of that kind. These indeed, had thick walls, high ceilings, were well-designed and still form a highly sought after part of real estate in Russian cities (while not many were built).
And yes, Khruschevkis were a good thing because they, as primitive and oversimplified as they were, were the only way for most families to move to the city from countryside, or to get their private housing for the first time.