It's called city planning. I don't know where this is but the commie blocks where I was born were within walking distance of shops, cafes, schools, had cheap central heating, all had children's parks and green areas between buildings, and public transport to the city center. All at dirt cheap prices since they were not built for profit, and could only be owned by people living in them or rented from the state.
post
yes: right-wing architecture:


The best architecture isn't politically-tainted, but designed to be beautiful first.
And your examples are actually political.
Yes: my point is that successful architecture is neither left-wing nor right-wing, and that architecture which is identifiably left- or right-wing is ugly and nauseating, almost by definition.
As context, these buildings have sizeable parks in between them. They also house different gyms, saunas, swimming pools and multi-storey apartments rented from the city of Vienna. "Wohnpark Alterlaa"
I can think of some things
Please be AI. Im overstimulated just from the still image
Take any exit off of almost any motorway in America and you'll be met with this.
It is real, but there were some lense and perspective tricks used to make it look worse than it actually is. Not that it looks great, but not that bad
From Google Street View:

Nah, this picture is old. I definitely remember seeing it in the 2010-2020 era.
It's also not left wing architecture. It's the cross roads of a left wing housing initiative, and a right wing refusal to spend money on the public good. What you get is something akin to unsecured prison architecture.

More right wing architecture
Right wing architecture 
Once you notice hostile design, you see it everywhere.
My favorite is the bench with no shade. It's a giant fuck you. You could sit here however you are going to sit in the full force of the sun.
So many tiny Pharaohs!
This doesn't look slave plantation-y enough.
I also can't find the pointy white hat.
Honest question: WTF is this?
Anti homeless / hostile architecture. Prevents people sitting or sleeping there.
This blows my naive European mind. To make an area deliberately unusable for anything by anyone is wild. At least those hostile benches can be sat on.
The amount of bench/public spaces without shades or benches you cannot sleep on are legion in Europe, too.
You should see Madrid. Dickface, the major, has an special place in his rotten heart for hostile-to-people anything.
I was surprised to find the new trainstation in a Finnish town has benches that prevent lying down on them. Apparently someone's been taking notes here 😕
You can find hostile architecture in Europe as well. Especially in front of windows.
Could they not have just put a lazy garden or something in instead...
That seems like a lot more work and expense
This architectural style is called, no kidding, Soviet Brutalism, and was the primary architectural style featured in the Soviet Union from the 1950s to the 1980s.
It’s a divergence from Western brutalism, focusing more on utopian and futuristic themes.
So, no, it’s not anything political. It’s a cultural thing.
Boston City Hall, for example:

The campus of the Rochester Institute of Technology, a.k.a. “Brick City”:

Honolulu has a bunch of brutalism, along with a bunch of other architectural movements
https://thinktechhawaii.com/more-tropical-brutalism-humane-architecture/
I had to screen grab it, but there is actually a brutalist bhudist temple in Chinatown in Honolulu

I would say "socialist modernism", not " soviet brutalism". Because there are a lot of examples not from ex USSR.
This is Belgrade, Serbia (ex-Yugoslavia):
Museum of Modern Arts:

Hotel "Yugoslavija":

You should check the link I posted. Honolulu has a crapton of brutalism, so I wouldn't associate it necessarily with any political movement.
I think where brutalism exists now is more a function of when an area was being developed, and it just happens that those areas underwent substantial development while brutalism was en vogue (late 50's - late 1970s).
So, no, it’s not anything political. It’s a cultural thing.
Soviet housing either followed or was contemporary with Le Corbusier's ideas of affordable ‘habitation units’, the now-famous cookie-cutter blocks with minimal decoration. The OOP is quite correct in calling it leftist, since the purpose was to have lots of cheap housing: the USSR had huge expansion of it during the fifties-seventies, with massive migration from rural areas to cities (following the less-neat redistribution of housing, wooden barracks, and communal living in the thirties).
Can't say I like the outcome too much, because arguably same population density can be achieved with lower-rising houses, since they don't require huge areas between them to have any sunlight. Khrushchev-era districts can be much cozier than later ones, since five-storey buildings are placed closer and have trees right outside the windows.

As was aptly, stated by another commenter here:
It's also not left wing architecture. It's the cross roads of a left wing housing initiative, and a right wing refusal to spend money on the public good. What you get is something akin to unsecured prison architecture.
So, again, no. This isn’t an example of left-wing architecture. This makes it an example of bad politics.
Soviet right wing refused to spend money on the public good when building millions of buildings across the country? What in the hell are you talking about?
I already gave a lesson in architectural styles. I don’t feel particularly obligated to educate you in Soviet history, nor to engage in a debate on the subject.
What's right wing architecture?
Blue tarps? But they're blue! haha, you wings are so silly with your flapping about
But seriously, have they not seen an apartment building or strip mall before? The architecture where I live is far from inspiring, it's just strip mall after strip mall for miles, then some big block office buildings. Yippee
A 300 million dollar mansion for one person. A 1.2 billion dollar prison complex for a few hundred people . Everyone else is homeless and lives under a bridge.
Because they think things make them extraordinary. They can't imagine the lives in those buildings being good without extraordinary things.
McMansions and parking lot deserts?
But everything gets depressing if all looks the same.
Just needs a little bit of paint.
Right wing architecture 
Why is the background smooth behind the swastika?
It would help if you found something less dope-looking. This pic is like 1920s New York, but with a swastika.
Coincidence?? It's pretty easy to imagine the swastika replaced with a dollar sign
True, but I can't hate old NYC architecture. That stuff was cool. In fact it's no coincidence either that last good-looking Soviet housing was during Stalin's era, as he liked New York's art-deco architecture and demanded it be used in the USSR (with Moscow State University's Ramenki campus being the most famous example).
here's the image for other lazy bastards who don't wanna click on a website like me:

If you look at the 🌳 , the don't have leaves, indicating that the picture was taken on a cloudy autumn day. Everything looks depressing on a cloudy autumn day.
Not the best example: Eastern-European countries tend to overcompensate and overdo the painting, making the result too noisy. Nordic cities look much better, precisely because they choose muted and coordinated colors, and usually paint the whole house instead of making patchy blobs. It so happens that khrushchyovkas are again better at it too, because they were built smaller and painted in one color, often muted orange or brown.


The bottom image is heavily tuned to have more vibrant colors. No place in real life has such strong hues. I'd suspect that place in real life looks very much like the above image
Could be, but it's still not the patchy mess that Soviet blocks tend to be colored into. New builds in Russia are often painted those very strong hues that apparently no place has. It's horrible.



I honestly like the first one
Agreed, that looks pretty horrible. It's more due to the lack of any color harmony than the strong hues. There are places with strong hues that look good imo, like Burano
It's always funny how everyone between Germany and Russia say that they're in Western Europe. Yeah keep telling that to yourself bud, Slovakia is certified Eastern Europe.
What I wrote above: "Eastern-European countries tend to overcompensate and overdo the painting, making the result too noisy". Just like in your above pic from Slovakia. But not in this one.
No need to inform me that some Western-European countries and even the US did housing of this style, as I'm perfectly aware that it was peddled by Le Corbusier at the same time as the USSR developed its approach, likely with cross-pollination at least in the west-east direction.
Also, Dresden will remain East-European in spirit until the former East Germany stop trying to recreate GDR with their conservative voting.
Indeed I am. Because what I'm saying is that folks who got their aesthetic sense botched by decades of Soviet doctrine, don't do well at dressing up the high-rises, even though buildings of a similar kind in the Nordics do splendidly.
And, as I mentioned in the thread, one can look at Stalinist housing and Khrushchevkas for examples of Soviet-type housing that didn't need gaudy paint to look decent, because they were built at smaller sizes and with the last remainder of the sense of beauty. Russians also never bastardized the old districts in Moscow and SPb, because those had established aethetics (except for new buildings inserted here and there, which predictably look shitty for the most part).
I've been looking at post-Soviet architecture for decades, it's still broken by the prolonged Soviet rule with its central imperative. It's generational trauma, and it will take two or three more generations to recover from it: the sense of visual taste of all these people, previously cultivated over centures, was effectively stomped out, and they need to acquire it anew, which takes time and effort. The deeper you go into Russia, the worse it gets, but the ripples are seen far and wide. I posted some examples here. That last pic you provided is like a little baby compared even to your original photo from Bratislava.
If you want to see some really bad shit, check out Luzhkov's style and capitalist romanticism. Those are prime examples of the looks being dictated by people who have money but no taste, and this has been going on through the nineties-zeroes, having been barely attuned in the 2010s by some hints of attention to modern Western architecture. And low-rank officials on the ground, responsible for painting the buildings, are certainly much less likely to read 'Architectural Digest'.
These detached blocks here in Lund
Those look pretty cool to me, as they resemble old European districts and seem also to work similar to townhouses like those in NYC. The paint scheme is also much better than in the Bratislava example, breaking up the block but not patchy.
Curiously, I've seen some new builds in Russia that are of typical block scale, but clearly inspired by modern European styles. These are way better than those still affected by the post-Soviet aesthetic and remainders of the aforementioned caprom malaise. Russia has the oddity that current regulations don't quite allow denser low-rise districts, so developers inevitably gravitate to big blocks, but at least some of them apparently strive for better looks. E.g.:




Forbidden You don't have permission to access this resource.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
When I visited Berlin, I heard a theory that these Soviet era units were why the cost of living was still accessible to creative-types so a big part of why the city is culturally thriving.
Ever seen the cooperate housing developments? No individuality in mcmansions coming in a cul-de-sac to your town.
Corpo housing isn't mcmansions. They're factory built homes shipped to site and dropped on locally poured foundations, sometimes with basements.
Sure, they can be decent sized, but the mcmansion is overly large and aimed at a different crowd, a crowd that's increasingly unable to afford them.
Source; I grew up in a corpo housing development from the 60s or 70s. The houses all looked identical from the outside, but had a few different floor plans, one down the street was actually two of the wrong halves put together, which meant that one of the closets didn't have a door and could only be accessed by someone crawling in through a gap near the ceiling.
Thankfully there was no HOA, so the houses quickly picked up some individuality.
Leftwing architecture is mixed-use, walkable neighbourhoods and community centers built with artistry in mind. It’s beatiful decor to old buildings that feel lived in. It’s parks and bus stops and bike lanes.
Rightwing architecture is a functionally dead grass lawn and a house so perfect that it feels not only dead, but oppressive. It’s replacing a slightly ugly group of three or four stores with a chain restaurant and a parking that generates less tax revenue for the city than the “shitty” stores did. It’s the old, dilapidated neighbourhood that’s falling apart because the city is too busy spending everyone’s tax money subsidizing the rich neighbourhood, then taking photos of only it and claiming that it’s better. No sidewalks, no nature, no way to get around without a car and nothing to do once you have one except a 45min commute in traffic to get to work.


top 90 comments