000			02743nmm a22002537a 4500
003			ES-BaAUN
005			20230103115735.0
008			221102| ||||go||d|||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a2575-5374
040			_aES-BaAUN _beng _cES-BaAUN
100	1		_aLevi, Eytan _eauthor.
245	1	0	_aStill Standing
260	3		_burbanNext, _cDecember 16, 2021.
300			_a4453 words.
500			_aEssay, Eytan Levi, High Density, Politics and economics, Technology and fabrication, Urban Paradigms
501			_aAccessibility, Architect’s role, Architecture, Architecture’s challenge, Building regulations, Climate change, Collective housing, Collective identity, Community, Concrete, Construction, Domesticity, Essay, Housing, Industrialization, Investigation, Migration, Moscow, Optimized living, Political implications, Population, Prefabrication, Production, Public Catalyst, Public housing, Real Estate, Renovation, Resources, Russia, Sharing economy, Standarization, Technology, Transformation, Urban environment, Urbanism
504			_aThis piece was originally written in fall 2020 for HIS-4399 Architecture and Construction: From the Vitruvian Tradition to the Digital, a class taught by Professor Antoine Picon at Harvard Graduate School of Design. It subsequently served as one of many ingredients for Still Standing, a graduate thesis about the renovation of Soviet mass housing from the 1960s co-authored by Eytan Levi and Ben Hoyle between the MIT Department of Architecture and the MIT Center for Real Estate. The author would like to thank the people behind the MIT-Russia Program and at APEX Project Bureau for supporting fieldwork in Russia during the summer of 2019.
520			_aOf all the construction programs carried out globally during the 20th century, the Soviet drive to address its domestic housing shortage through prefabricated construction and separate dwelling units is by far the most ambitious in terms of output: between 1960 and 1975, 1.55 billion square meters of new housing were erected, and two out of every three inhabitants in the USSR were rehoused. Despite its scope, the buildings were often low quality, and the program did not manage to rehouse the entire population. In the time since the dissolution of the USSR, the Soviet approach to mass housing construction has been perpetuated and adapted. To this day, mass housing is still troubled by issues of material decay, financing, and governance. New civic initiatives are required to improve the lives of the countless post-Soviet citizens who live in these structures.
653	0	0	_aArchitecture
653	0	0	_aHousing
653	0	0	_aSoviet Union
856	4	0	_uhttps://urbannext.net/still-standing/ _zAccess to info
942			_2ddc _cCF _n0
999			_c1288 _d1288