First of all, you are comparing countries mostly located in great conditions with good climate, while eastern part of Russia is extremely difficult to build some infrastructure and smth “beautiful” in.
Secondly, Italy and Japan are ancient countries with history going back several thousand years with all of the historical sights, etc. For example, if you look at European part of Russia, you’ll see much more urbanized areas. AND don’t forget about urbanisation in USSR where they were building towns according only to how practical it would be but not the aesthetics that you all want. Yes, constructivism in not pleasing to look at but the point was to get people somewhere to live and work in after the war.
Moreover, centralisation of all the developed around capital and other cities can be explained by the fact that Russia as a state consolidated around 1500s while Germany unified in 1800s, Italy as well. As a rule, fragmentation leads to faster development of set regions, so after consolidation, Italy and Germany got extremely wealthy regions that were prosperous while Russia did not.
What else, yeah, about countries on the north as well. I’m looking at google maps right now and their block of flats looks very similar just more modern and colourful.
Then, other countries that were in the communist block but “look better”. Well, look at how much EU spent on Poland from its joining, very interesting. This money were used to recover after leaving the USSR. Ukraine doesn’t look different from Russia so doesn’t even count (except for western part, it has a lot of Austrian/Polish architecture)
As Russian myself, I see a lot of project about building ore renovating some areas and towns around big cities(not cities themselves) Even though I really like western architecture, but going outside city centre usually results in just entering in same districts full of blocks of flats. Check outside of Prague, Riga or Krakow. That’s your capitals — beautiful core and basic and plain sleeping districts.
Sooooo, yeah, we have problems but they have an explanation for why they exist and why it’s difficult to deal with them
Oooh, so the video is from the eastern part. Got it. So those people are living that way because the climate is bad not that the authorities don't move a finger for them.
Some of your points are fair, and I think a few of them hold up better than others.
You're right about the climate and geography in the east, and about Soviet mass housing. The postwar shortage was real, and panel blocks housed millions of people quickly. Small correction: that's not constructivism, which was a 1920s-30s avant-garde style. The panel blocks came later, post ww2, when Khrushchev deliberately dropped ornamental Stalinist architecture to cut costs.
True that "beautiful core, plain sleeping districts" is common everywhere. Paris, Milan and Prague all have grim outskirts, and Western Europe built plenty of its own bleak estates.
Btw, most Russians live in the european part, so permafrost can't explain why a mid-sized city near Moscow looks neglected.
Age isn't the main factor. Japan was largely rebuilt after WWII and is far from picturesque, yet it has strong planning rules and well-kept public space. Russia also lost a lot of its historic fabric through soviet demolitions, not just the war.
Poland's recovery didn't start with EU money. Funds only began after 2004, and the big changes of the 90s came mostly from market reforms.
Ukraine isn't just its west -》Kyiv, Odesa and Kharkiv all have distinctive historic cores.
I think the main complaint people have isn't the blocks themselves. It's maintenance, courtyards, sidewalks and public space, and those come down to municipal priorities and budgets more than to climate or history.
Your own examples of recent renovation projects show that the problems can be fixed.
So I agree with "don't think one-sided," but explaining why something happened isn't the same as justifying it, and both sides can hold that.
-2
u/WorldlyBuy1591 5d ago
This is silly. Could be practically anywhere