Mihkel Uku Karindi
Home in a sleeping district type of neighbourhood could suggest a rather modest and functional place of living. Still a huge part of the residents of the city live in similar conditions as the people in Stroomi. Though home is a rather personal place, one could ask whether or not the surrounding architecture and the way urban planning has been done, contributes in any way to the feeling of home? This project aims to answer that question by first tackling the ideas behind the designs which shape this district and also introducing the opinions of the residents themselves who live in this neighbourhood.
Karin Paulus as a source of inspiration
When analysing the article “Home in a Distorting Mirror,” the question of whether the surrounding environment plays a role in shaping the feeling of home emerged. Although the author primarily focuses on a deeper understanding of homeliness-emphasizing its private and personal nature- the discussion still served as an important source of inspiration for the further exploring of this research. [1]
Home in the sense of the project
The word ‘’home’’ in the context of this project is interpreted as something more than just a private sphere. It is also the environment beyond the private apartment which makes up the surrounding neighbourhood. Home is thus understood as the part of the city where one should feel the most welcome and at ease.
Furthermore, from an architectural perspective, the neighborhood can be understood as consisting of three distinct parts, each originating from a different architectural and political era: Stalinist-era housing from the 1950s, Khrushchevka housing from the 1960s, and Brezhnev-era housing from the late 1960s and 1970s.
These three areas exhibit distinct spatial and architectural characteristics, and this project examines whether differences in the built environment are sufficient to result in varying perceptions among residents. The project seeks to explore how the built environment shapes this sense of “kodusus’’ / homeliness.
Stalinist era housing
This part of the neighbourhood is characterized by highly decorative architecture and elaborate facades. Apartments in these buildings are typically seen as rather spacious, mainly thanks to the exceptionally high ceilings. While such apartments may be perceived as luxurious by today’s standards- when going back to the time of their construction, they were often intended for communal use. Multiple households often shared a single apartment, including bathrooms and kitchens. This mode of living has, of course, changed significantly over time. [2]
Khrushchev era housing
This area of the district represents the purest expression of Soviet-era mass housing and the emergence of the so-called “sleeping district.” These types of buildings , which are often also called “khrushchevkas,” are typically characterized by their functional design and modest scale. Still one notable architectural feature is the use of gable roofs, distinguishing them from the flat-roofed housing that followed in later decades.
Apartments in Khrushchevka buildings are usually said to be notably small, reflecting the period’s emphasis on efficiency and rapid construction. Although these buildings are not significantly taller than housing from earlier era, they typically include at least one additional floor- making them at least 4 stories high, though 5-story versions are even more common. From a contemporary perspective, such apartments can appear as most suitable for single residents or young families, given their limited size. [3]
Brezhnev era housing
The third part of the neighbourhood also marks the peak of prefabricated construction. These buildings are constructed entirely from concrete panels, reflecting the era’s emphasis on rapid, standardized building methods. Compared to earlier housing types, Brezhnev-era buildings again often feature balconies and shared courtyards, providing semi-public outdoor spaces for residents, which unlike the previous type were made up by putting the apartment blocks right next to each other. Apartments in these buildings are also usually larger than their predecessors, with improved layouts that offer more functional and comfortable living spaces. [4]
Interviews with the residentsNo one understands a neighbourhood better than those who live there. Accordingly, to gain a clearer understanding of how the area is currently used and perceived by its residents, I conducted interviews with local inhabitants to gather insights into their experiences of living there. Taking into account the conceptualization of the neighbourhood as comprising three distinct architectural sections, the interviews were conducted across each of these areas in order to examine whether responses varied between them. This approach also contributed to addressing the research question of whether the surrounding architecture and urban planning influence residents’ sense of home.
To further address the research objectives,I asked the residents a series of semi-structured interview questions designed to reveal their perceptions and experiences of living in the neighbourhood. The questions included the following:
How would you describe living in Pelgurand in a few words?
Do you feel a sense of connection with your neighbours in this area?
What do you like most about your home, building, or neighbourhood?
Is there anything you would change, if you had the opportunity to do so?
Do public outdoor spaces in the area feel safe to you?
In your opinion, does the appearance and design of the buildings influence how you feel while living here?
Residents of the Stalinist-era area expressed the highest level of pride in their surroundings. Interviewees emphasized their appreciation of the architecture and indicated that they place a high value on their living environment. They particularly highlighted the availability of transportation, proximity to the sea, and the overall quietness of the neighbourhood. The main concerns raised included limited interaction with neighbours, insufficient maintenance of green spaces, and the need for improvements to certain roads. Overall, residents in this part of the neighbourhood demonstrated the greatest level of satisfaction with their living environment.
Based on the residents’ of the Khrushchev area responses indicates a more neutral attitude toward the architecture compared to the previously discussed part of the district, with greater appreciation expressed for the surrounding forest and proximity to the sea. Transportation was similarly regarded as good. Still, a limited interaction with neighbours can still be noted that . Additionally, a new concern emerged regarding perceptions of safety: some residents reported feeling unsafe at times due to the presence of unfamiliar or suspicious individuals in the area at night. Thus, improved street lighting was identified as a potential area for neighbourhood improvement.
Residents of the Brezhnev-era area expressed a similar appreciation for the nearby forest, proximity to the sea, the quietness of the neighbourhood, and the the transportation. However, when discussing the architecture and immediate residential environment, stilll a desire for greater use of colours was emphasized. One interviewee suggested that increased colour in the built environment would likely have a positive effect on the overall mood, noting that the current surroundings are perceived as visually monotonous. In addition, residents expressed a wish for the facades to be renovated- an issue also raised by some residents of the Khrushchev-era buildings- as well as for the introduction of more flowers, bushes, and other forms of greenery that would provide colour throughout the year. Concerns regarding insufficient street lighting were once again raised, alongside with limitations in the parking availability.
Conclusion
Across all the interviews, a consistent theme was the generally positive attitude residents expressed toward their neighbourhood. While some participants had lived in the area for several decades and others had moved in only recently, both groups reported great satisfaction with their living environment. Residents particularly valued the neighbourhood’s quietness, clean air, and proximity to both the sea and surrounding forest. Several residents described the area as “ kodune“ (homely), noting that this sense of comfort and belonging might not be as strongly present in other “sleeping“ districts of the city. These findings directly relate to the research question of whether the surrounding environment contributes to a sense of home. Based on the answers of the residents, it could be very much argued that in that context it does.
Refrences:
[1] Paulus Karin, Home in a distorting mirror.
[2] Stalin, majad ja Pelgurand https://jaakjuske.blogspot.com/2012/05/stalin-majad-ja-pelgurand_02.html
[3] Paulus Karin, 101 Nõukogude aja ehitist. (Tallinn: Varrak, 2019), lk 44.
[4] Olev Liivik. Tallinna ajalugu VI 1917-2019. (Tallinn: Tallinna Linnaarhiiv, 2019), lk 244-245.