• flamingo_pinyata
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not mutually exclusive. My pet conspiracy theory is that Soviet buildings were somewhat intentionally made to be awful, not so much to save on resources, but because the appearance of “suffering for the revolution” was desirable. Literally - we can’t let people have nice things, it uncommunist.

          • flamingo_pinyata
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m sure there were buildings with nice artwork on them. Ironically, communist countries had a well defined ruling class who could get nice things. It’s the average that counts. Also, slapping a small artwork on an otherwise ugly building is not really a solution.

            My experience is mostly Romania, Hungary and ex-Yugoslavia. Those in Romania and Hungary are awful undecorated gray boxes, with substandard installations, paper-thin walls, and very depressing places to be in.
            Yugoslavia is a different story, visibly not a part of the Soviet bloc. While there are some bad buildings, on average both quality and aesthetics, are much much better. Fairly nice places to live in

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Aesthetic is part of life quality. If that is required to keep people housed, that society is a failure. Ideally, population continues to fall and none of that will be necessary.