This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]On: 17 August 2013, At: 20:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Soviet StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceas19

Who gets what, when andhow? Housing in the SovietUnionHenry W. Morton aa Queen's College, The City University, New YorkPublished online: 06 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Henry W. Morton (1980) Who gets what, when and how?Housing in the Soviet Union, Soviet Studies, 32:2, 235-259

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668138008411295

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET STUDIES vol. XXXII, no. 2, April 1980, pp. 235-259

WHO GETS WHAT, WHEN AND HOW?HOUSING IN THE SOVIET UNION

By HENRY W. MORTON

O F all Soviet urban problems, housing remains the most intransigent.The tsarist legacy in housing was dismal. Under Stalin, conditionsworsened. Stalin invested heavily in industry but failed to provideresources to house the millions who left the farms to work in factories. ASoviet citizen invariably lived in communal squalor and the crowding ofmany families into one flat was universal. In 1950 the estimated livingspace per person was less than five square metres (some 7 by 7 feet).

Shortly after Stalin's death, Soviet leaders decided to eliminate thehousing shortage. Since 1957 the USSR has been building 2-2 millionunits yearly—a remarkable achievement, even if the size and quality ofunits are below Western standards.' The results of this effort are visiblein almost every city and town. In most cities new housing districts by faroutnumber the old. By the mid-1970s the per capita living space in urbanareas had increased to 8 square metres (some 9 by 9 feet) for the USSRand 10 for Moscow.2 Speaking from personal experience, almost all ofmy Soviet acquaintances as well as officials whom I interviewed in the1970s told me that they lived in self-contained (otdel'nye) flats. A decadeor more ago, they lived in one room sharing kitchen and toilet facilitieswith strangers. (The fact that most came from privileged groups and hadlived for many years in Moscow and Leningrad undoubtedly contributedto their good housing situation.)

Rising Expectations and Housing Conditions

Because housing conditions did improve for part of the population thedemand by those who were still waiting for their own flats intensified.'The tremendous amount of flat construction in the past 10 to 15 yearshas not been able to keep pace with the population's rising expecta-tions . . . ,' declared Literaturnaya gazeta in 1972;3 'this explains whywaiting lists for new flats are longer than ever.' (This we shall see is onlya partial explanation.) Housing has become much more stratified. Theknowledge that a housing 'rich' exists has aroused expectations and bredresentment in the housing 'poor'—those millions who are still waiting to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

236 SOVIET HOUSING

receive accommodation in new blocks of flats. A survey conducted inMoscow revealed that the percentage of those who voiced dissatisfactionwith their housing had doubled between 1966 and 1969, chiefly amongthose who had observed close relatives and friends being assigned newflats of their own while they remained behind.4

Measuring the Housing Shortage

Soviet citizens still suffer from the poorest housing of anyindustrialized nation, principally because so many families still livecommunally. In 1974 an estimated 30% of urban households in urbanareas still shared flats, with an additional 5% (mostly single people)living in factory hostels.5 The fact that conditions were worse in 1960,when 60% of all families lived communally, is of little comfort to thehuge numbers still living in inadequate conditions.6 The waiting periodfor a new flat may be as long as ten years, and only those with livingspace of less than 5 square metres are considered. Newly-weds have littlechance of moving into their own flat.

The Soviet government would persuade its citizens that their housingconditions are steadily improving, and regularly publicize the fact thatmore than 2-2 million new housing units are built annually with a totalarea of 110 million square metres and that ten million people annuallyimprove their housing situation—by moving into these new housing unitsor by the exchange of rooms or flats.7

These statistical recitals, and they are impressive, nevertheless servethe purpose of covering up the continuing critical shortage of units forthe existing number of households (a household is defined as a marriedcouple, a parental pair with children, a single parent with children, or asingle individual living by himself). A numerical comparison of units tohouseholds is crucial in measuring Soviet housing needs. Yet thisinformation is not published. This statistical gap is not an oversight. TheUN Statistical Yearbook provides such figures for all West and EastEuropean countries except the USSR.8

In practically all Western nations the goal of matching housing unitswith households has been achieved. In the USSR the deficit of housingunits in relation to the number of households is very large and is theprincipal reason for the 'permanent housing crisis'. The deficit in 1970,according to unpublished Soviet figures quoted to me in an interview,was 7-4 million units in urban areas. My estimate showed an even largershortfall of 9*6 million units, or 128 households for every 100 units.9 Tomake matters worse, the deficit has been expanding since 1965 becausethe rate of housing construction has not been increased to accommodatethe continuing flow of rural migrants to cities, or to house newly-weds

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 237

and the divorced, whose numbers have spiralled in the last decade.In 1965 2-4 million marriages and divorces were recorded; in 1974

their number had risen to 3-3 million. Yet the same number of housingunits, 2-2 million, were completed for each of the years cited. Thedifference between the new housing built and the number of marriagesand divorces in 1965 was 142,097 units, but by 1974 it had jumped to 1 • 1million units.10 Every divorce results in a new household formed.Frequently divorced couples are forced to continue living togetherbecause of lack of other accommodation. The ratio of divorces tomarriages is higher in urban areas and highest in large cities. In Kievthere were 3*5 divorces for every 10 marriages in 1973.' ' Therefore, tobegin providing a flat for every household, Kiev would have to morethan double its rate of housing construction and complete a new housingunit in fewer than every ten minutes.12 This would require a hugeinfusion of capital investment into housing. But it will not happen,because the state has consciously underinvested in housing and otherurban services. The Tenth Five Year Plan (1976-80) calls for no increasein the rate of housing construction. On the contrary, capital outlays forresidential housing, as a percentage of total capital investments, havedeclined from 22-5% in 1960 to 14-2% in 1975—a clear indication thatthis sector no longer holds high priority with Soviet leaders.'3

Consequently the housing shortage will continue to plague Soviet citiesfor many years to come.

The Propiska System

Large cities, especially capitals of republics and Moscow most of all,are magnets to those living in the provinces. They offer the possibility ofenjoying some creature comforts within the Soviet context of chronicconsumer shortages. Moving to them is another matter. To live in a city aresidence permit (propiska) is required. But to be eligible for a residencepermit you need to have housing, for which you need a propiska.

Because of severe overcrowding every large urban centre is closed towould-be immigrants. Some, however, are more closed than others,Moscow most of all, although an official list enumerating closed citieshas not been published. The chances of finding a crack in the door toadmit a select few depend on several factors: the attractiveness of thecity; the presence of military installations and defence-related industries,the relative weight of the agency sponsoring an individual; and theindividual himself, his profession, need and trustworthiness based onreferences (kharakteristiki). Every step in the process from acquiring apropiska to receiving comfortable housing is measurable in years ofanguish, aggravation, discouragement and resignation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

238 SOVIET HOUSING

The likelihood of receiving permission to move to Moscow, Leningrador Kiev without official sponsorship or with no flat to exchange fromanother city is next to nil. Even with these, many obstacles will have to beovercome. Of course, the more prestigious an individual's position or thegreater the need for his skills or the higher his rank in the partyhierarchy, the better his chances are. Semi- and unskilled labourers, ifdesperately needed by a factory, may also be admitted if hostel beds areavailable.

If unsponsored, an individual may battle with the bureaucracy alone,and few attempt this discouraging procedure. First, a residence must beacquired, because the propiska, when issued, is for a specific streetaddress which is affixed to a person's internal passport. Getting on thewaiting list is out of the question, since only residents are taken. Findinga room or part of one as a sub-tenant is the only way. Once this task isaccomplished, and it is not an easy one, the individual then goes to thelocal housing office and asks for the pasportist, the official in charge ofresidence permits, who takes the application to the district militiastation, where the processing takes place. In practically all casespermission to reside in Moscow will be denied.

Residence permits are of two kinds: temporary and permanent. Atemporary propiska may be issued for the duration of one's workassignment in a city, such as a tour of duty for an officer of the armedforces or an engineering project for an organization for a specific timeperiod. It need not be a professional position. Workers from theprovinces are also imported to fill menial jobs. For example, in recentyears it has become exceedingly difficult to get a Muscovite to be advornik, who cleans hallways and the immediate exterior and also servesas an agent for the local militia. He is usually given a ground-floor flat.If he is dismissed or leaves he is evicted from his flat and loses hispropiska.

The chances of receiving a permanent residence permit improve if twofamilies of approximately the same number living in different cities agreeto exchange flats of approximately the same size. Such an exchange ismore likely to be approved between Moscow and Leningrad thanbetween Moscow and Gor'ky, unless strong sponsorship from a Moscoworganization is forthcoming.'4

The following is the story of a flat exchange between cities that wastold to me. A family of three living in Moscow had a tragic car accident.The wife of the driver was killed, leaving the husband and his three yearold son. The parents of the widower, living in Vladimir, about 100 milesfrom Moscow, wished to move to the capital to be with their son andgrandson during this difficult period of adjustment. The grandfather wasa recently retired high-ranking army officer living in a two-room flat.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 239

After many months of trying, the grandfather, lacking a sponsor, failedto organize a flat exchange between Vladimir and Moscow. Finally hedecided to use his influence and visited a number of prominent armycolleagues in the capital. With their help and much money he wasultimately able to arrange an exchange chain, involving families in fivecities, as part of which he and his wife were granted residence permits fora one-room flat in Moscow.

Who Gets on the Waiting List?

Those who have a propiska, but wish to improve their poor housingsituation by moving into a flat of their own, are solely dependent on thehousing authorities. The housing market in USSR cities has been largelyreplaced by this allocation process—although a subsidiary housingmarket, to be discussed later, still remains.

The attempt to improve one's housing situation can be a full-timeoccupation. If one's sanitary norm of nine square metres of living space(approximately a 10 by 10 foot room) has been satisfied, getting on thewaiting list is virtually impossible except through connections. Asmentioned above, it is usually necessary to have less than five squaremetres to warrant consideration. There are two kinds of lists for whichindividuals may seek registration, those belonging to enterprises andorganizations, and those belonging to municipalities. A particularlyskilful applicant may get on both, or try one after the other if turneddown. Waiting lists of enterprises and organizations are much preferredsince their distribution of housing is usually carried out in less than halfthe time taken by municipalities.

In new towns, of which there are over one thousand in the USSR,housing is primarily financed and controlled by large enterprises of oneor several industries which 'run' the city. In such 'company' towns,housing is nominally distributed by a trade union committee andformally approved by the executive committee of the local soviet. In fact,however, a troika consisting of the director, party committee and tradeunion committee of the enterprise decide in concert on the allocationprocess.'5

In older towns, in capitals of republics and in large cities likeLeningrad, as much as half or more of the housing stock is owned by themunicipality.'6 The municipal waiting list is organized by the districtsinto which a city is divided—Moscow has 29, Leningrad 16 and Kiev 11.A housing commission of the district soviet, following generalguidelines, will determine who will be accepted on the waiting list and theorder of priority in which applicants will be considered. Unless anindividual has lived in the district for many years and has less than 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

240 SOVIET HOUSING

square metres of living space—(the minimum requirement differs fromcity to city and may be as low as 3 square metres in some), or is in a'special' category, his chances of being placed on the waiting list aresmall. The commission makes its recommendation to the executivecommittee of the district soviet, which invariably gives its approval.Those turned down by the commission may appeal to the districtexecutive committee, but unless a petitioner has a spokesman from hisorganization pleading his case he has little chance of overriding thehousing commission's decision. Petitioners are generally from privilegedgroups of Soviet society: party activists, engineers, scientists, artists,academics, foremen and athletes who seek to be taken out of turn toavoid a ten-year wait.'7 Housing owned by enterprises and organizationsis distributed in a similar manner to that described for 'company'towns.18

Here is a partial list of the types of people whose applications will beconsidered for a place on the municipal waiting list in Leningrad,provided that they are permanently registered and have lived in that cityfor many years: those with less than 4-5 square metres of living space;those living in housing declared unfit for habitation; those living inhostels; those who have worked for the district department of housingfor some time; and those having less than 4*5 square metres and who areregistered in Leningrad oblast but have worked for many years in aLeningrad city enterprise.'9

To be legally taken out of turn is a privilege reserved for the recipientsof high awards: Hero of the Soviet Union, Hero of Socialist Labour andthe Order of Glory; officers and enlisted men of the armed forces and thetroops of the Committee of State Security (KGB); blue- and white-collarworkers employed by the army and navy; invalids of World War II andthe families of those who died in that war; sufferers from tuberculosis;and those sharing a room with strangers.20

I still vividly remember in 1964 sitting in the office of the Vice-Chairman in charge of housing for the Leningrad District of Moscow.On that particular day thirty-one people came and went. Some remainedonly a few minutes. Others stayed as long as ten. They came alone orwith their family, with different problems, but with one request: to begiven better living quarters, specifically, separate flats. Only threereceived satisfaction—the very sick, based on medical certification. Theycame as supplicants entreating this official representative of Sovietpower to grant them this favour, small for him, enormous for them, thatwould immeasurably improve their lives. When refused (and probablymost had little hope that they would receive a favourable hearing), theyaccepted their fate with resignation and left—except for a few, who witha vengeance abandoned their obsequious mien and began berating the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 241

vice-chairman for having failed them in their hour of need. Throughoutthe four and a half hour session, which he held twice a week, the vice-chairman listened with a benign countenance, but either would or couldnot satisfy their requests.2'

Certain categories, because of their occupation, have the right to addi-tional living space above the nine square metres norm. Most of thesecategories have existed since the early thirties when thay had littleapplication because living space in that period was at a premium foreveryone and averaged less than five square metres per person. Theestablishment of special categories was part of Stalin's campaign againstegalitarianism. Housing, wages and other perquisites of the systemwere to be awarded for ability rather than need, to provide incentives forthe capable and the diligent, to help Stalin in his drive to industrializeRussia at break-neck speed.22

Those entitled to an additional room or 10 square metres above thehousing norm were 'responsible workers', a deliberatelyvague category:Heroes of the Soviet Union and of Socialist Labour; officers of thearmed forces with the rank of colonel or higher; inventors and industrialefficiency experts. Particularly favoured by law, presumably becausemany work at home, are writers, composers, sculptors, architects andacademics. They may have 20 square metres above the norm.23 Thisright to additional space has made flat-living much more comfortable formany in the privileged categories who in the last decade have been able totake advantage of this prerogative.

How many succeed in reaching the official waiting list? Figures on thissubject are not published. But for Moscow, according to A. V.Bazavluk, the Head of the city's Department of Registration and Alloca-tion of Living Space, 180,000 families or 590,000 persons were on thelist in November 1974. This accounted for 7-8% of the capital's popula-tion; 60% of them averaged less than 5 square metres of living space. Theothers lived in dilapidated quarters or lacked basic conveniences such ascentral heating or hot water. Of the total, 70% were on preferred lists.They will be accommodated within a number of years; the other 30%may have to wait as long as a decade even if they are registered in theirdistrict. Those on enterprise or organizational lists will be taken withinthree to four years. Bazavluk provided other statistics: 94% of all newflats are distributed to a single household. Usually a family of four willreceive a flat of three rooms with a living space of 41-44 square metres.The other 6% are chiefly allocated to families staying less than two yearsin the capital who will share accommodation. On the key question ofhow many Muscovite families still live communally, the answer givenwas 30%. We can take this to mean a minimum of 30%, since the figurepublished a year earlier was 10% higher.24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

242 SOVIET HOUSING

Many people living in large cities do not live at their place of registra-tion. The propiska system, like many other controls in Soviet society, isin the good Russian tradition—beatable, and housing bureaucrats fre-quently deal with phantom figures. Like any scarce commodity, housingis hoarded. Why give up something valuable when it can be put to gooduse for exchange? Two flats or parts of them can be swapped for a largerflat, as a stand-by in case of divorce, for rental, and, most importantly,as a legacy for one's children. A married man, living in a cooperativeflat, remains registered in his mother's flat, so that, although it ismunicipally owned, it will legally become his to occupy on her death.Housing as a legacy is the theme of 'The Exchange', a story by YuryTrifonov, in which a calculating daughter-in-law changes her registrationand legally moves in with her husband's dying mother, whom shedespises, to prevent that room from reverting to the state after her death.The daughter-in-law plans to use the additional space in an exchange toget better housing for her own family.25

The Subsidiary Housing Market

Those who wish to by-pass the tyranny of the allocation process cantry their luck in what I call the subsidiary housing market. It picks upwhere the allocation process leaves off and depends largely on one'sability to pay. Private rentals, cooperatives, flat exchanges and privatehouses are all part of an active housing market. The cost of atransaction, except in the case of cooperatives, where the price is set bythe government, is based on the going market rate, which is invariablymuch higher than the officially permitted price and is, therefore, illegal.

If an individual or couple has a residence permit but are not actuallythe lessees of a flat or a room they have no housing to exchange.Therefore, their options are few. They can try to rent a room or a flat.This is difficult, expensive—because of black-market prices—and only atemporary solution. Or they can try to join a housing cooperative, butfor this several obstacles need to be overcome. A married couple willhave to prove their need for better housing, which means that unless theyaverage less than 5 square metres of living space the district housing com-mission will not approve the application. Ivan and Nadya have notapplied to join a cooperative for that reason. Now in their early thirties,they have shared a four-room flat with Ivan's parents for almost adecade, but fervently wish to live by themselves. They know that theirapplication will not be approved by the authorities because jointly theyhave 21 square metres of living space, three above the norm, and lack apowerful sponsor to push their case.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 243

Even if Ivan and Nadya qualified in terms of need they could notafford the cost. Before 1977 the down-payment for a two-room (pluskitchen) unit was 5,000 rubles, or 45% of the 11,111-11 ruble cost, therest to be paid off at low interest rates over a period of 15 years. Sincethen the down-payment has been increased to 6,500 rubles, a sum whichtakes an industrial worker averaging 150 rubles a month 43 months toearn (white-collar parents will frequently 'build' a cooperative for theirchildren, the only way newly-weds can hope to move into a flat of theirown).2 6 Even at these prices cooperative units are at a premium and veryhard to obtain in Leningrad and other cities, where fewer are started thanin Moscow. Most cooperatives are built in newly created districts farfrom the centre, where shopping is virtually impossible because shopswill not be completed for several years. For that rare cooperative builtnear a metro station, a bribe of 1,000 rubles may be necessary to satisfythe chairman of the cooperative and the housing inspector who processesthe applications, because the demand will far exceed the supply.

The Exchange System

To engage in a housing exchange a person must have a room or a flatregistered in his or her name. It can be state-owned or part of acooperative. How does one find out about exchanges? Notices whichbegin 'I am exchanging' are plastered all over kiosks, bus and trolley-bus stops, lamp posts, fences and building walls.2 7 They are also foundin the Bulletin for Housing Exchanges which most large cities publish.The Moscow Bulletin is published every Thursday with a supplementaryissue appearing about once a month on Saturdays. It averages 63 pagesand lists more than 1,000 notices. The Leningrad bulletin appears bi-monthly and carries about 630 notices;28 Tbilisi, to my knowledge, doesnot have one. The Moscow Bulletin prints only 25,000 copies and likemany Soviet publications it is capriciously distributed. Only certainnews-stands will carry it and copies are not available in libraries nor,surprisingly, in Housing Exchange Bureaux.29

TABLE OF CONTENTS OFThe Moscow Bulletin for Housing Exchanges,

10 April 1976

room for 2 in different districtsroom for 2 togetherroom for smaller30

room for largerroom for equal value

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

244

2 rooms together for 2-3 in different districts

2 rooms in different districts for a flat

2 rooms together for 1-3 or separate flats:adjoining rooms without separate entrancerooms with separate entranceadj oining/separate-entrance rooms

2 rooms together and 1-2 rooms elsewhere for a flat

3 rooms together

3 rooms in different districts for a flat

Separate flats of one room

Separate flats of two rooms:adjoining rooms without separate entrancerooms with separate entranceadjoining/separate-entrance rooms

Separate flats of three rooms:adjoining rooms without separate entranceseparate rooms with separate entranceadj oining/separate-entrance rooms2 adjoining and one separate-entrance room2 adjoining/separate and one separate-entrance room

Separate flats of 4-5 rooms

Separate flats of 1-2 rooms

2 separate flats

SOVIET HOUSING

Soviet citizens describe their housing position very specifically, usingcategories quite different from ours. This can be seen from reading theTable of Contents of the Moscow Bulletin which also reveals the highlydifferentiated nature of Soviet urban housing based on values largelyproduced by the acute housing shortage. Here are two advertisements,picked at randon from the 10 April 1976 issue:3'

Adjoining. 18 & 7 m2 (one additional family with 4 persons), kitchen 9-5 m2,hot water, 8th floor of an 8 floor bldg., lift, balcony, incinerator; DenisDavidov St. (Metro Station Kutuzovskaya); telephone number; from 5 p.m.Wanted: 2 rooms in different bldgs. except ground floor in the Kiev, Kuntsevodistricts.

(from the category: 2 rooms together for 2-3 in different districts)

and

18 & 12 m2, kitchen 6 m2, hot water, toilet and bathroom combined, 3rd floorof a 5 floor block prefabricated bldg., balcony, Taganrogsky Str. (MetroStation Tekstil'shchiki), No. 24, flat 11; telephone number and name.Wanted: 2-room flat with separate rooms.

(from the category: separate 2-room flats)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 245

A brief explanation of the housing preferences of Muscovites isnecessary to decode the advertisements.

In the best of all possible worlds the ideal housing unit is a self-contained flat with one more room than the number of persons living init. Its location should be in the centre of town in a brick or stone buildingwith high ceilings and it should have all modern conveniences, such asgas, hot water and central heating, the toilet separate from the bathroomand a balcony and telephone. One should be able to enter the roomsfrom the hallway and not by having to go through one room to reach theother. The flat should be located on an upper floor, but not the top (theroof might leak), nor the ground or first floor (too noisy and subject toburglary); the building should be close to a metro station and have a liftand an incinerator.

In the first advertisement a couple, living communally, is probablygetting divorced and, therefore, seeking separate rooms. Their location isexcellent. It is in one of the most desirable districts of Moscow, nearenough to the centre for good shopping and the theatre, yet not too faraway from the woods. The drawbacks are that the rooms do not haveseparate entrances and that one of them is tiny. The fact that the flat ison the top floor is less serious. The parties involved wish to remain neartheir present location by seeking separate rooms in adjoining districts.Since they currently live in a communal flat an exchange willundoubtedly find them other communal flats where the habits of theclose neighbours one inherits cannot be known with certaintybeforehand. This is one of the chief hazards of exchanges of this kind.

The party in the second is probably a couple with one child. They livein a less desirable district in the south-east of Moscow. They have theirown flat in an early pre-fabricated building built most probably in theKhrushchev years because the house is five stories high and the toilet andbathroom are combined. Their chief reason for seeking an exchange is toget two rooms with entrances from the hallway. Their reason might besimilar to that of Igor and Irina, who live in similar circumstances. Tfreyhave a young child and because both work Irina wishes to engage a sleep-in nanny, but she cannot because the rooms lack separate entrances. Thismeans that the occupant of the rear room only has access to thebathroom or kitchen by walking through the adjoining room.

Every large city has a Bureau of Housing Exchanges which is anagency of the Department of Registration and Allocation of HousingSpace. It has an office in every district of the city which acceptsadvertisements for the Bulletin, maintains a card file (for a 3 ruble feeper entry) of those citizens who wish to exchange their present housingand a separate one for those who wish to make an inter-city exchange.Unfortunately exchange bureaux do not assist clients in finding living

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

246 SOVIET HOUSING

quarters; this failure has been criticized by a number of specialists.Although the number of persons wanting to make exchanges hasincreased twelve-fold in ten years, critics deplore the fact that 'the personwho wishes to exchange his flat for one more suitable is left to his owndevices. He may haunt the exchange bureau's threshold for months, evenyears, pouring over notices and contacting interested parties.'32

Suggestions that exchange bureaux could best help by organizingcomplex exchange-chains involving many families by using computertechnology (it is currently done—without the aid of computers—by onlya few housing inspectors in Moscow and Leningrad) and that a nationaldata bank should be established to assist in arranging inter-cityexchanges have so far fallen on deaf ears.3 3

Because exchange bureaux provide little help, a lively open-air 'stockmarket' trading in rooms and flats operates in all weathers just outsidethe central exchange bureau's office. Its Moscow location is just offProspekt Mira in one of the oldest sections of the city.3 4 Not all housingexchanges are approved by the authorities, principally because theysuspect that money is being exchanged for unfair gain. Frequently theyare right. But such an attitude by officials in the exchange service iscounter-productive, according to one critic, because putting obstaclesbefore 'simple exchanges only leads to black markets and brokers'.35

One example of the complicated and time-consuming negotiationsneeded to organize a housing exchange involved Andrei D. Sakharov, thefamous nuclear scientist and dissident. The Sakharovs wanted to movewith their daughter, son-in-law, two small grandchildren and Mrs.Sakharov's mother into a four-room flat communally occupied by threeother households. In all, the exchange chain involved 17 persons and 5flats and took a year to arrange. 'As Dr. Sakharov told it, everyonewelcomed the prospective move. Two of the women sharing the kitchenand bathroom of the communal flat had been quarrelling constantly. Awidower wanted to give up his room for a separate one-room flat so thathis mother-in-law could move in to help care for his three-year-old child.The rest saw a chance to improve their own living conditions.' The plan,first approved by the housing commission of the district soviet, wasvetoed six days later by the district soviet executive committee, ostensiblyon the grounds that one of the women, already exceeding the legal normby 6 square metres, would gain another three-quarters of a square metreif the move were permitted.3 6 Whilst the real reasons for annulling thisexchange may have been political, Sakharov's ability to bring hisdifficulties to the attention of Western journalists enables us todocument such highly complex exchanges, which are frequent in theUSSR.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 247

The Sub-Lease of Rooms and Flats

Every Wednesday Vechernyaya Moskva, Moscow's evening paper,publishes a separate advertising supplement of four pages, one of whichlists personal advertisements for housing exchanges, the sale andpurchase of houses and dachas and the sub-lease of rooms and flats.With adult children away at school or work or married and livingelsewhere a couple may have an extra room to let. Those located in thecentre of town are in the greatest demand and fetch the highest rent of 40rubles per month or more. Sub-leased flats are, of course, more expensive.A certain number of Soviet citizens—diplomats, journalists, members ofthe armed forces, bureaucrats, academics, engineers, etc.—will be senton work assignments out of the city or out of the country for a year ortwo and take their family with them. They can make a lot of money bysub-leasing their flat during their absence. Those letting rooms and flats,benefiting from a highly favourable sellers' market, can specify whotheir applicants should be and do so in the advertisements: students,post-graduate students, army personnel, or couples.37 Once the partiesagree on the price the prospective sub-tenant files an application with thelocal housing office. If he or she has a residence permit, permission isusually granted even though the authorities know that the real rentcharged will be many times higher than the legally permitted fee of a fewrubles. They overlook this practice, fully realizing that the black marketin letting is a necessary safety-valve which takes care of a portion of theoverflow desperately in need of lodgings. To try to suppress such dealswould place housing officials under even greater pressure to distributerooms and flats which they do not have.

The Lucrative Second-Home Market: Dachas

A second-home market in letting is flourishing. Each summer morethan 25% of all Muscovites and Leningraders rent a dacha and another35% have access to one.3 8 For the elite as well as for the less privileged adacha serves a strong Russian need to communicate with nature, to sun-bathe in a country back-yard 'lush with weeds'.39 Dachas come in allsizes from stately villas with servants for the political leadership to anoverpriced room rented from a kolkhoznik.

Except for high party and government functionaries, who live in state-owned dachas, or members of the scientific and cultural elites, whofrequently own theirs, the dacha hunt begins as early as February. It isstrictly a sellers' market, as one dacha-renter discovered.

Our family decided to spend this summer at a dacha, so one February day weheaded out.into the country—about a 40-minute ride from Moscow. There wefound dozens of other prospective dacha-renters. We soon learned the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

248 SOVIET HOUSING

procedure . . . which was quite simple: you simply go in any gate, and there'sno need to explain what you've come for. The local residents understandimmediately and greet you with such phrases as 'completely rented' or 'we haveregular renters'.

Dacha owners are extremely selective and ask lots of questions about howmany children you have and what kind of pets and whether or not you have atelevision, or plan to invite guests, etc. One woman tried to let us a woodenshed and another shdwed us a room that she planned to divide among severalfamilies. A friend once rented a dacha and in the summer found that the smallhouse had been divided into nine different 'closets' for as many families. Wefinally found a suitable dacha, but the price was staggering. For the sameamount, the entire family could have gone on holiday to the Black Sea forthree months.40

Since then the price has gone up, as it does every year. 'Before wethought that 500 to 600 rubles for the summer was expensive. But now itis common to go up to 1,000,' a dacha-renting wife told a New YorkTimes reporter."' This is the going price for a comfortable dacha withmodern conveniences. To rent a room in a dacha shared with othertenants which has electricity, running water, no gas, but an outhouse,may cost 200 rubles. Legally, the rent is one ruble and 32 kopeks persquare metre (on which the landlord pays taxes), but it only exists onpaper because, as Sovetskaya kul'tura admitted, 'everyone knows thatthe actual rents are based on demand and that both the landlords and thetenants keep the real figure secret.'42 Leningrad architects haveestimated that fresh-air-seeking city-dwellers pay dacha-owners inLeningrad oblast 25-30 million rubles a year. 'This is not surprising,considering that, in terms of numbers accommodated, dachas accountfor approximately 80% of all suburban holiday facilities.'4 3

Conditions will get worse, not better, for dacha hunters, becausedespite a growing demand the state is not rapidly increasing its publicrecreational facilities: in the Moscow area summer holiday places canaccommodate only 10 to 12% of adult requests. Nor is the governmentpermitting a rapid expansion of dacha construction cooperatives, inwhich a lively interest is being expressed, or liberally granting permits toprivate dacha builders.44 Therefore, letting the hut for the summer,while he and his family sleep in the tool shed, will continue to be aprofitable sideline for the kolkhoznik near a large city.

Letting single rooms to summer holiday-makers is common practiceeverywhere. Soviet hotels, because of insufficient space, primarily caterfor foreigners and those domestic clients who are on official businesstrips. In the Baltic republics, to stay in a private home will cost fourrubles a day during the season, and usually 3-4 persons will share a room.The rates for Sochi are cheaper, about two rubles per person. Sochi, on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 249

the Black Sea, is the Soviet Union's biggest resort. It had about threemillion visitors in 1975. Of these nearly two million found privateaccommodation. The estimated income from the home-lettings was 700million rubles.45

Buying a dacha is even more difficult than renting one. The market isfierce because so few are up for sale. The cheapest is a khibarka, a littleshack with a small plot that costs about 5,000 rubles, if one can befound. The price for a comfortable country home with four or morerooms and modern conveniences will range from 15,000 to 50,000 rubles,but they are scarce. When one buys a house one also buys a plot,although legally the sale of land is not permitted since, in theory, itbelongs to the state. The problem, then, is finding a plot of land to buildon. In Estonia plots are available only through cooperatives and there isa long waiting list. A way round the problem is to buy a phantom cottagefor several thousand rubles. 'Once a person buys a house—often one thathas collapsed or does not exist—he gains the use of the land and canbuild his own house or dacha. This form of land speculation under theguise of selling houses has become common practice in many districts ofEstonia.'46

The hopes of prospective dacha owners in the RSFSR may well have torest on the purchase of abandoned farm-houses in small villages. 'Thelarge scale migration from the countryside to the city has left manyabandoned but fully habitable houses in rural areas. '4 ' The reluctance ofrural Soviets to give their approval to such sales has been the chiefobstacle. Some feel that this would be squandering state farm-land.48

But the main opposition is based on the controversial Article 73 of theLand Code which implies that land can only be transferred betweenpermanent residents of the rural community.49 'If you can come to anunderstanding with the local soviet,' maintains a dacha expert, 'to helpthem in some way or simply bribe them, you can get a dacha cheap, from800 to 4,000 rubles.' The code is obviously open to interpretation. Forexample, a doctor got a country home by agreeing to give occasionalconsultations at the rural clinic.50

Marriages and Divorces of Convenience

A quick route out of the provinces and into Moscow, Leningrad orKiev is finding a marriageable resident with apropiska. An acquaintanceof mine told me of her friend in Yaroslavl' who travels five hours bytrain to Moscow every weekend searching for a woman with 'the properregistration'.

To help individuals whose efforts have failed to produce results'marriage brokers' sometimes materialize. Leonid Kazakevich, a Baku

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

250 SOVIET HOUSING

resident, got into the business when he married Marina to obtain hisMoscow residence permit (it cost him a car). To recover expenses andmake further profit, he married Lyuba, Natasha and Margarita insuccession so that they could legally live at his address. Then he began toarrange marriages for others. He made thousands of rubles before hewas finally apprehended.5'

Fictitious divorces take place so that couples can get more spaciousaccommodation than they would have obtained had they stayed legallymarried. This is another example of hoarding. Leonid, with a familyof three, all living in one room when they got on the waiting list. Bythe time they were assigned a three-room flat, the husband adamantlyrefused to give up his room on the basis that he had divorced his wife.Afterwards it was found that all four still lived together and that theyhad exchanged their new housing and the 'divorced' husband's room formore spacious quarters.5 2

Jumping the Queue

To reduce one's waiting time from 10 years to two, or zero, a personmust find a way to be taken from the waiting list out of turn. For such a'miracle' to take place blat (influence), a bribe, or both are needed. It isnot surprising that this is ohe of the most frequently cited violations inthe housing system.

In the Soviet Union, a 'society of connections', whom you know willdictate how well you are housed, what food you eat, what clothing youwear and what theatre tickets you can get. It is not simply a question ofmoney, although that helps and may be essential, at some point, to 'buy'an official; more important will be one's connections, because there aremany commodities which money cannot buy and can only be obtained asa favour, which must be repaid either immediately or at some later date.The society of connections is composed of interacting networks offriends and acquaintances who by virtue of their position have access toscarce resources which they trade for others. A good flat is one of thescarcest commodities and to get it quickly you must be well connected.'Too often the decisive factor is not the waiting list,' Pravda explained inFebruary 1973, 'but a sudden telephone call . . . [after which] they givethe flats to the families of football players and the whole queue is pushedback.'3 3 It helps immensely if your father has influence, as was the casein Magnitogorsk where the director of a large factory obtained a flatillegally for his son.54

Just as the subsidiary housing market in the USSR has led to a score ofextra-legal practices, so have the propiska system, the housing allocationprocess and restrictions placed on private-home ownership. Since

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

50 VIET HOUSING 251

government officials monopolize the supply of housing it isunderstandable that housing bureaucrats will be the focal point ofbribes, because the demand far exceeds the supply. Getting housing nalevo, under the table or through influence, is a well established practicewhich lubricates a rusty bureaucratic machinery and rewards inequitablythose with influence and money.

Officials are frequently on the take. Trying to sniff out which ones willaccept money is tricky and to initiate such an act, without some kind ofsignal, is dangerous because conviction brings a sentence of eight years.If an official openly asks for money then it is another matter. A seniorhousing inspector in Rostov charged 1,000 rubles for a flat which he'delivered' to a waiting party in six months.53 Another extorted 500rubles from a worker, even though he was first in the queue on hisfactory's list, with the threat that he would lose his turn. The amount ofmoney changing hands can be considerable. A factory director and hisassociates pocketed 48,000 rubles in four years.5 6 A middle-aged lady inAstrakhan was rumoured to have a contact with an important member ofthe city's executive committee. She asked 800 to 2,500 rubles for a flat.'In four years some forty desperate flat-seekers, including professionalpeople and Party members, paid her a total of 50,000 rubles in bribesbefore it was discovered that she had no contacts at all.'5 7

Flagrant and systematic abuses in the housing allocation process areexposed when a general campaign against corruption is launched in arepublic. One began in Georgia (well-known for its high-living and illegalbusiness mentality), with the appointment of Eduard A. Shevarnadze asFirst Secretary of the Georgian party in the autumn of 1972. Hedenounced current practices in housing, which triggered off an avalancheof investigatory reporting. In one case only six flats were given toworkers and employees of the Tbilisi trade association, which had built ablock of 46 flats. More than 100 families, including 11 wounded veteransof World War II, in urgent need of improved housing were ignored.i 8 Aconstruction cooperative in Tbilisi initially intended to build three blocksof 160 flats. But those in charge schemed and succeeded in erecting 16high-rise blocks with 1,281 flats. Many of these units were assigned, withthe district Soviet's illegal approval, to families who did not even live inTbilisi and were adequately housed by Soviet standards.5' High officialsof the Georgian Ministry of Trade were discovered living in opulent style;the deputy minister illegally combined two flats with a total living space of105-6 square metres and his associate unlawfully acquired a flat of156*7 square metres and passed his previous flat on to his daughter.60

The Armenians rivalled the Georgians in illegally acquired housing.Local party and government officials brazenly accepted bribes as theyspeculated with state-owned flats.6' More than half of the units of an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

252 SOVIET HOUSING

eleven-storey block constructed by the Yerevan champagne factory for itsemployees and workers in the centre of the capital were given to peoplewho did not work at the plant.62 The lure of living in the centre ofYerevan also proved too much for the directors of the semi-conductorfactory in the new satellite-town of Abovyan. They decided to build newhousing for their workers, not near the factory, but in the centre ofArmenia's capital, which was 16 kilometres away. The location of theblock as well as the design of the flats, illegally built according toindividual specifications, was in complete disregard of regulations.Furthermore, all 48 units were assigned to the management of thefactory.63

Private Homes for the Influential

Local party and government officials, factory managers, state bankdirectors and others use their connections to build well-equipped, over-sized homes (far in excess of the permitted 60 square metres of livingspace), on illegally assigned plots, using stolen building materials andillegally loaned construction machinery. They own several privatehomes, although only one is ostensibly allowed to each household, whilestill maintaining a state-owned flat in the city. Such practices arereported throughout the USSR.

Officials of the Executive Committee of Kaunas, the second largestcity in Lithuania, illegally assigned land to officials and other influentialpeople who built homes according to individual plans drawn up byprivate architects. The houses were not approved by the design instituteas required, and illegally obtained building materials were used for theirconstruction.64 In Zaleshchiki, a small and very attractive resort townon the Dniestr River in the Ukraine, 'two- and three-storey homes arepopping up like mushrooms in the rain.' Ukrainian officials approvedthe construction of these oversized homes, averaging 100 square metresof living space, on plots obtained illegally from kolkhozy and usingbuilding materials in critically short supply provided by the inter-kolkhozconstruction trust.65

A cursory check in Georgia indicated that in 1974 more than 50,000homes had been built illegally. In the small Georgian community ofTskhvarichamia 990 'imposing' mansions were built with the aid ofmodern equipment, materials and manpower which, for the most part,were charged to the state. Influence in the right places and enough readycash made it possible. Those for whom such mansions were builtincluded the first secretary of a district committee in Tbilisi and thedeputy director of the Tbilisi restaurant trust.66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 253

An investigation by the Armenian Central Committee exposed theunlawful use of many expensive villas in Kirovkan, Abovyan, Sevan,Dilizhan and other localities which were built and maintained at thestate's expense. They were falsely registered as rest-homes belonging tovarious ministries. Implicated in the scheme were the ministers ofagriculture, road construction, industrial construction, the head of theState Committee on Forestry, a section chief of the ministry ofcommunications and the director of the 22nd Party Congress sovkhoz.6 7

Typical violations were those committed by G. S. Katchatryan, a bank-manager who already owned a house in the city and decided to build alarge two-storey private residence in the countryside using illegallyacquired construction materials, and by A. B. Mirozyan, the director ofthe Impul's Plant in Dilizhan, who, although already registered for twoflats, one in Yerevan and another in Dilizhan, built another privatehouse in Dilizhan although the construction of single-family homes hadbeen banned there since 1962.6 8

While provincial and republic officials (of small republics) areperiodically criticized and some even removed for corrupt practices, thetop elite, politb ireau members, USSR ministers, high-ranking militaryofficers and KGB officials who live well by Soviet or any other standards(but practise their consumption inconspicuously away from the publiceye) are never publicly reprimanded for their sybaritic life-style because itwould put the top strata in a bad light.

Housing Differentiation and Stratification

Housing is an intrinsic part of the reward-system of Soviet society. Thethree most sought-after consumer acquisitions are a flat, a car and acomfortable dacha. A state-owned flat is the only one of the three that is'free'; a car costs 7,000 rubles (about four times the average annualsalary of an industrial worker) but is almost impossible to buy becausethere is a long waiting list;69 a comfortable dacha runs to five figures,but only a few are available on the market.

Rent in the Soviet Union, because it is artificially kept low, does notdampen consumer demand for housing. Nearly everyone can afford itsince it accounts for only 5% of a family's monthly earnings.7"Therefore, unlike in capitalist countries, a Soviet citizen's ability to payhas little influence on the quality of housing he enjoys. This decision ismade for him by the bureaucratically controlled allocation process.

Urban housing in the USSR is a state monopoly. In 1975 the stateowned 74-2% of all housing in cities and towns.7 ' Governmentagencies, as we have seen, distribute all state housing (and must approvecooperative and private housing transactions) but do not do so equitably

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

254 SOVIET HOUSING

on the basis of need, and never have. After the Bolshevik Revolution thenobility's and bourgeoisie's homes and flats were divided among workersand peasants, but some received more than others and some did notreceive anything at all. Nadezhda Mandelstam recalls, in her secondvolume of memoirs, Hope Abandoned, how in the early twenties writersin favour received privileged housing, even if it was only a room, whichat that time was as treasured as today's flat, and extra food rations; butthose who were not, like Khlebnikov, the futurist poet, were givennothing.7 2 Housing in the USSR was and continues to be differentiatedamong the least, less, more and most favoured.

This phenomenon is not readily visible, since the housing appearsphysically undifferentiated, whether it be the old housing stock of theinner city or the new pre-fabricated developments which seem to havesprung from a single mould. Government policy sharply limits theresidential and housing investment choices of citizens. Cities with over100,000 people chiefly offer flats since they are the only units which maybe built.73 Permission to build comfortable single-family homes is notusually granted near cities. Neither are credit or building materialsavailable. Consequently, suburbs as known in the West do not exist.

The acute housing shortage is very much of the government's making.Citizens' initiative to improve their own housing situation is consistentlystifled, but government policy continues on the one hand to investheavily in industry, attracting workers and management personnel tourban areas, and on the other deliberately to under-invest in housingconstruction and other consumer services which are needed to take careof the people.

Differentiated housing in Soviet cities is frequently not recognizable byneighbourhood or by building as housing the middle class, workers orthe poor, as is possible in other societies, because much differentiationtakes place within a block which has communal and individual family-occupied units. This is common in the older and middle-aged districts ofcities. And, even within communal units, there is further differentiationbetween those which have more space or rooms than others.

In the same building a typical communal flat of four rooms may housea retired couple, a factory worker, his divorced wife and daughter (stillliving together because he cannot find other accommodation), a widow,and a young couple working during the day and studying at night.Another communal flat of similar size may accommodate only twofamilies, and a third may contain only one privileged household.

In newly constructed developments, sponsored by individualorganizations, differentiation by building and even by neighbourhood isslowly increasing. Departments of ministries, the armed forces, theKGB, the Academy of Sciences, institutions of higher education,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 255

factories and other organizations construct blocks of flats for theiremployees and workers. A recent example of this is the cluster ofcooperative buildings erected by the Writers' Union on Red Army Streetnear Dynamo Station in Moscow. Not only do those in higher-paid andmore prestigious positions receive preference, but because they are wellconnected they can use their influence to provide close relatives with flatseven though the latter do not work for the organization that built thehouse.

Another example of differentiation is cooperative housing, which islargely occupied by the intelligentsia and their children. Setting a muchhigher premium on space and privacy, they are willing to pay huge sumsto get better housing more quickly than workers. This separation by classwas pointed out by an engineer to a Western friend: 'See the position ofour block . . . We live in one made up entirely of cooperative flats. Theyare inhabited mainly by members of the intelligentsia. Around us—overthere, and there—are blocks of workers' flats. You see the differencevery clearly in the mornings. The lights in workers' flats go on at seven,or earlier. In the cooperative flats, they may not be on until eight ornine.'74

The poorest urban housing class in the USSR, the 'least favoured', arethe millions who cluster beyond the limits of large cities.7 5 They are alsothe most segregated. Mainly semi- and unskilled workers, manycommute to the city to work—but not by choice. Large populationcentres are closed to them to prevent Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev andothers from becoming Soviet-style Bombays. Beyond the city boundarywith the last high-rise structure still in sight a harsh rural life-styleprevails. Housing in these smaller settlements and towns consists mainlyof small wooden huts which are equipped with electricity and some withpropane gas to fuel the stove instead of paraffin or wood. But water hasto be drawn from a pump; and an outhouse must suffice instead of aflush toilet. There is no central heating, and very few have telephones.Shopping is difficult and cultural and higher educational facilities aregenerally not available.

In the city, the housing poor—approximately 35% of the urbanpopulation—are 'the less favoured', who live communally or in hostels.Possessing a legal right to live in the city, they can at least hope that inthe distant future they too will receive a flat of their own. In themeantime they can take advantage of the amenities which Soviet urbanlife offers compared with rural living.

Much better off are those households living in self-contained flats innewly erected housing districts. They are 'the more favoured' eventhough they are located far from the centre; commuting to work maytake an hour by crowded bus and metro; and shopping is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

256 SOVIET HOUSING

difficult—therefore food will have to be bought and carried home fromshopping centres closer to the inner city.

'Most favoured' are those families living in flats in or near the citycentre. These are mainly the political, military, state security, economic,scientific, cultural, educational and worker elites. They are also the mostheavily subsidized because they pay the same low rent per square metreas those living communally. Thus, the most advantaged become thebeneficiaries of redistributed social wealth and even more so becausethey can pass it on to their children.

There is, of course, further differentiation within each housing class.The Table of Contents of the Moscow Bulletin of Housing Exchangesprovides the best quick illustration of this phenomenon with its 16 majorand minor categories for which a housing exchange demand exists. Itshould be mentioned that a small percentage within each of the first twohousing classes, by preference, is not upwards-mobile. Some of theelderly who have lived communally all their lives may not wish to movefrom the inner city away from their friends and convenient shopping.Similarly a number of those living beyond the city limits prefer ruralliving which permits them to tend a vegetable garden in the summer.Upward movement, as we have described, from one housing class to thenext, though not impossible, is difficult and may take a good part ofone's lifetime.

Queen's College, The City University of New York

1 See Henry W. Morton, 'Low Cost Housing in the USSR', Proceedings of I.A.H.S.International Symposium on Housing Problems—1976, Clemson University, 1976, p. 101.

2 Soviet housing statistics are invariably reported in sq. m. of housing space (the totaluseful space in a unit that includes kitchen, bathroom, corridors and storage areas) and notin sq. m. of living space (based on the number of rooms in a unit) which every citizen goesby. To calculate living space from housing space figures, I have used a correction factor of0-67 which is used for Moscow, the only city for which aggregate living space data areavailable. The figures are for 1975. See Narodnoe khozyaistvo SSSR v 1975 godu, Moscow:Statistika, 1976, pp. 5, 576, 580.

3 12 July 1972.4 V. A. Belova, L. E. Darsky, Statistika mnenii v izuchenii rozhdaemosti, Moscow:

Statistika, 1972, p. 123.5 The estimate is based on Moscow's situation, where according to the chairman of the

city soviet, 30% of all Muscovites still lived communally in 1974. V. Promyslov, 'Zaobraztsovyi kommunisticheskii', Sovety deputatov trudyashchikhsya. No. 12, 1975, p. 24.

6 N. Bobrovnikov, 'Razvitie zhilishchnogo stroitel'stva v tekushchei pyatiletke',Voprosi ekonomiki, No. 5, 1972, p. 24.

7 See the report by N. K. Baibakov, Chairman of the USSR State Planning Committee,Izvestiya, 28 October 1976.

8 UN Statistical Yearbook 1974, New York, United Nations, 1975, pp. 804-11.9 Henry W. Morton, 'Housing Problems and Policies of the Comecon Countries of

Eastern Europe', paper delivered at the Eighth National Convention of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, St. Louis, Missouri, 8 October 1976, p.4, forthcoming in Studies in Comparative Communism.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 257

10 Ibid., p. 10.11 Viktor Perevedentsev, 'Commentaries on Statistics: Cities of 1,000,000',

Literaturnaya gazeta, 30 April 1975, translated in the Current Digest of the Soviet Press(hereafter CD.), vol. XXVII, no. 18 (28 May 1975), p. 3.

12 Reporters interviewing the Chairman of the Kiev City Executive Committee: Q.: 'Ifthe USSR is building houses at a faster pace than any other country, why do we still have towait so long for a flat?' A.: 'Let's look at the Kiev statistics for the answer. Every 20minutes a new flat is completed. Every 15 minutes a new baby is born. And every 20minutes another worker migrates to the city. Hence the wait.' Komsomol'skaya pravda, 25July 1976.

13 See Narodnoe khozyaistvo, op. cit., p. 507.14 I wish to thank Prof. Yuri Luryi for his explanation of how the propiska system

works.15 See William Taubman, Governing Soviet Cities, New York:Praeger, 1973, pp. 54-60.16 Ibid., p. 97.17 See Alfred John DiMaio, Jr., Soviet Urban Housing, New York: Praeger, 1974, pp.

116-31; and Henry W. Morton, 'The Leningrad District of Moscow—An Inside Look',Soviet Studies, Vol. XX, No. 2 (October 1968), pp. 206-18.

18 They also lay claim by virtue of precedent to a portion of the municipal housingstock. If over a period of years a flat or a room had been assigned to an employee of theWriters' Union, for example, that organization will claim the right to continue placing oneof its nominees in the unit when it is vacated.

19 Yu. K. Tolstoi, Sovetskoe zhilishchnoe zakonodatel'stvo, Leningrad: LeningradUniversity, 1974, p. 10.

20 Ibid., pp. 11-12.21 See Henry W. Morton, 'The Leningrad District of Moscow—An Inside Look', op.

cit., pp. 215-17.22 See Stalin's speech on cadres in Voprosy Leninizma, 11th ed., Moscow,

Gospolitizdat, 1953, p. 367.23 Tolstoi , op. cit., p . 9 1 .24 Interview, 5 November 1974. T h e s ta tement tha t 4 0 % of families live communa l ly

was published in G. B. Polyak , E. V. Sofronova , General'nyi plan i byudzhet Moskvy,Moscow: Finansy, p . 37. Because the book appeared in 1973 the percentage citedpresumably referred t o 1972 or a year o r two earlier.

25 In Carl and Ellender Proffer (eds.), The Ardis Anthology of Recent RussianLiterature, Ann Arbor : Ardis, 1975, pp . 117-69.

26 According to a survey in Kiev only 5-6% of newly-weds moved into their own flat.Komsomol'skaya pravda, 15 September 1975, C.D., vol. XXVIII , no. 10 (7 April 1976), p .22.

27 From observation, but also in Izvestiya, 6 July 1973, C.D., vol. XXV, no . 27(1 August 1973), p . 23.

28 Leningrad 's bulletin is called Spravochnik po obmenu zhiloi ploshchadi.29 This lack was criticized in Izvestiya, 6 July 1973, C.D., vol. XXV, no . 27 (1 August

1973), p . 23.30 A person may wish to exchange a room in a communal flat for a smaller one for such

reasons as:1) an elderly woman, frequently a widow, living alone without savings, may wish toexchange her large room, which is her only valuable possession (though formally itbelongs to the state) for a smaller one and receive cash under the table for it; the housingauthori ty will still have to approve the exchange and the money component will, ofcourse, not be revealed because it is illegal;2) the room is in a house that is far from work, or from the centre, or from a metrostat ion; a smaller room but in a better location is preferred;3) the person is living in a communal flat and has unbearable neighbours—habitualdrunkards , etc.;4) the flat in which the room is located may lack a ba throom (though it probably willhave a w.c.); or the building may be run down, or lack a lift.A small room may be in a good location and have served the individual well when single,

but is too small for a married couple. The couple is willing to give up a central location for alarger room in a district that is less desirable.

31 Byulleten' po obmenu zhiloi ploshchadi, 10 April 1976, pp . 4 and 16.32 Literaturnaya gazeta, 16 March 1977.33 See Izvestiya, 6 July 1973, C.D., vol. XXV, no . 27 (1 August 1973), p . 23; Izvestiya,

19 March 1974, C.D., vol. XXVI , no . 11 (10 April 1974), p . 26; and Izvestiya, 6 October1974, C.D., vol. XXVI , no . 40 (30 October 1974), p . 30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

258 SOVIET HOUSING34 Hedrick Smith was there on a blustery October Sunday and observed ' . . . hundreds

of people, hands thrust in their pockets and scarves wound tightly against the cold carryplacards around their neck or hand-scrawled signs pinned to their sturdy coats .Occasionally, they pause to converse quietly in twos and threes and then walk on .

A modish young couple offers an attractive 'spl i t '—the exchange of a four-room flat,large by Soviet s tandards , for two smaller ones . . . An elderly woman tries to coax a man ina dark fedora to take single rooms in two different communal flats in return for hisseparate one-room flat with kitchen, bath and phone.

At the far end of the lane, students and officers swarm around a few landlords offering aroom, a bed, or a small flat for rent. Some students turn up their noses at a two-room unitin an old building with gas heat but no indoor plumbing. But a middle-aged woman and amarried couple, less fussy, compete for it. In ten minutes , the flat is gone for 50 rublesmonthly , paid a year in advance. ' New York Times, 11 November 1974.

3 5 Izvestiya, 19 March 1974, C.D., vol. XXVI , no 11 (10 Apri l 1974), p . 26.3 6 The New York Times, 4 March 1977.37 See Vechernyaya Moskva, Weekly Advertising Supplement, 6 November, 1974.3 8 Literaturnaya gazeta, 2 July 1975, C.D., vol. XXVIII , n o . 16 (5 May 1976), p . 24;

and The New York Times, 17 August 1977.39 Ibid.4 0 Sovetskaya kul'tura, 30 March 1973, C.D., vol. XXV, no. 19 (6 June 1973), p. 18.41 The New York Times, 17 August 1977.42 Sovetskaya kul'tura, 30 March 1973, op. cit.43 Literaturnaya gazeta, 2 July 1975, op. cit.44 Ibid.45 Pravda, 13 July 1976, C.D., vol. XXVIII, no. 28 (11 August 1976),'p. 22.46 An Estonian purchased a cottage on a picturesque site for 2,500 rubles in 1972. The

following day the seller arrived with the proper documents stamped by the rural soviet andsmilingly presented him with a stone in lieu of the house. Pravda, 10 August 1972, C.D.,vol. XXIV, no. 32 (6 September 1972), pp. 32-33.

47 Literaturnaya gazeta, 1 January 1973, C.D., vol. XXV, no. 19 (6 July 1973), p. 18.4 8 Ibid.49 Literaturnaya gazeta, 15 August 1973, C.D., vol. XXV, no. 40 (3 October 1973), p.

22.50 The New York Times, 17 August 1977.51 Izvestiya, 12 December 1970, C.D., vol. XXII, no. 51 (19 January 1971), pp. 30-31;

see also Pravda, 26 December 1974, cited in Soviet Analyst, vol. IV, no. 3, (30 January1975), pp. 7-8.

5 2 See Peter H. Juviler, 'To Whom the State Has Joined: Family Ties in Soviet Law',Paper read at the Conference on the Individual and the State in Soviet Law, New York,29-31 October 1976, p. 26. The citation is from V. Zimarin, 'Rastorzhenie braka',Sotsialisticheskaya zakonnost', No. 3, 1975, p. 61.

53 16 February 1973.54 Sovetskaya Rossiya, 16 May 1975, in ABSEES, (Soviet and East European Abstracts

Series), Vol. V, No. 4 (October 1975), p. 69.5 5 Trud, 12 August 1975, cited in Soviet Analyst, Vol. IV, No. 17 (21 September 1975),

p. 8; see also Trud, 1 February 1973.56 Pravda, 19 May 1973, C.D., vol. XXV, no. 20 (20 June 1973), p. 20.57 Soviet Analyst, Vol. II, No. 14 (5 July 1973), p. 7 citing Sotsialisticheskaya

industriya, 7 June 1973.58 Zarya vostoka, 2 October 1973, in JPRS (P. & S.), 12 December 1973, p. 70.59 Pravda, 19 March, 1974.6 0 Zarya vostoka, 28 October 1973, cited in Radio Free Europe Research, USSR, No.

1935, 6 December 1973, p. 6.61 See the speech by the First Secretary, Karen S. Demirchyan, Kommunist (Yerevan) 2

February 1975, C.D., vol. XXVII, no. 10 (2 April 1975), pp. 3-4. He complained that'violations of the procedure for distributing housing, which have become widespread in thepast few years, arouse great and justified indignation among the working people. The stateof affairs is especially bad in the city of Yerevan. In many of the capital's organizations andinstitutions housing is distributed without the active participation of party and trade unionorganizations. Matters have reached a point at which certain dishonest elements, who havebuilt themselves nests in local Soviet agencies, are engaging in speculation with state flatsand brazenly taking bribes.'

62 Pravda, 21 August 1973, cited in Soviet Analyst, Vol. II, No. 18 (6 September 1973),pp. 7-8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3

SOVIET HOUSING 25963 Trud, 13 July 1974, cited in Soviet Analyst, Vol. III , N o . 16 (1 August 1974), p p . 7-8.6 4 Komjaunimo tiesa, 12 December 1974 in ABSEES, Vol. VI, No . 2 (April, 1975), p .

81 .65 Pravda, 25 May 1975, C.D., vol . XXVII , n o . 21 (18 June 1975). p . 18.6 6 Pravda, 19 October 1973.67 Kommunist (Yerevan), 28 March 1974 in JPRS, (P . & S.), 14 May 1975, p p . 9-10.6 8 Trud, 2 August 1973 in JPRS (P . & S.), 12 December 1973, p . 73 .69 The waiting period for a car is considerable. It is for this reason that used cars are more

expensive than new ones, because you can buy them immediately. A form of preferredrationing for cars exists. Special preference is given to prestige institutions. I was told inJanuary 1978 that certain institutes of the Academy of Sciences can provide new cars forseveral members at the official price every year, therby by-passing the waiting list.

7 0 Because rent is so heavily subsidized it fails to cover even a port ion of theconstruction cost and contributes less than two-thirds to maintenance—and this does notinclude capital repairs. See Everett M. Jacobs , op. cit., p . 81 .

71 This includes cooperatives. Narodnoe khozyaistvo SSSR v 1975 godu, op. cit., p .576.

7 2 Nadezhda Mandelstam, Hope Abandoned, New York, Atheneum, 1974, p . 90.7 3 See Henry W. Mor ton , 'Wha t Have Soviet Leaders Done Abou t the Housing

Crisis? ' , op. cit., pp . 177-80.7 4 David Bonavia, Fat Sasha and the Urban Guerilla, New York, Atheneum, 1973, p .

170.75 I am greatly indebted to Ivan Szelenyi for this section. I have adapted his seminal

analysis of Hungar ian housing classes (which he developed with Gyorgy Konrad) for theUSSR. See his 'Housing Systems and Social St ructure ' , The Sociological ReviewMonographs, 17 (February, 1972), p p . 269-97.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

50 1

7 A

ugus

t 201

3