The amalgamation of residential cells, nurseries, kindergartens, and of the communal body into blocks can take the widest variety of forms.
Whatever the decision may be, however, one must keep in mind the correlation between child and adult population figures, which determines the maximum and minimum dimensions of the blocks. It is self-evident that, on the one hand, a number of these blocks may be joined together into one general block (which is not particularly expedient) or, on the other hand, can be split up. (For example, for a single nursery and one kindergarten there can be 2, 3, 4, etc. adult dwelling buildings.) As regards communal bodies, if a mechanized kitchen and food-combine are present then it is best to build them for no more than 300–400 diners.
Taking into consideration previous construction experience up to this point, one can recommend the following schemes for architectural organization of blocks:
35. LAYOUT OF THE PROJECT.
36. LAYOUT OF THE PLAN2
37. LAYOUT OF THE PLAN
38. AXONOMETRIC VIEW.4
41. AXONOMETRIC VIEW.
42. PLAN OF GROUND FLOOR
43. PLAN OF SECOND FLOOR.
48. AXONOMETRIC VIEW.5
49. PLAN OF GROUND FLOOR
50. PLAN OF SECOND FLOOR
51. PLAN OF THIRD FLOOR
52. REST AND CULTURE PARK.6
57. BLOCK. (PLAN, AXONOMETRIC VIEW, FACADE, AND SECTION)
58. MODEL OF THE OSA SETTLEMENT.
61. GENERAL VIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT. SKYSCRAPERS.
63. PLAN OF GROUND FLOOR.
64. PLAN OF SECOND AND FOURTH FLOORS.
The first variant gives a three-story block with one corridor, in which the residential unit consists of identical (standardized) groups of 10 residential cells in each [vertical] group, of which two (on the first floor) must accommodate a couple while the other eight (on the second and third floors) are single compartments.
Auxiliary kitchens are installed either on the ground floor or in one of the residential cells (as temporary quarters which can be changed at any time).
Each of these [vertical] groups of rooms is equipped with bath and shower (third floor) and double baths (second floor). All cells can be united, without any changes, into apartments of 2, 3, or 4 rooms.
The second variant of this offers the same residence building but with corridors on each floor and with identical residential units; moreover, services are placed on each floor near the stairway [not illustrated].
Connected with the dwelling unit are the dining room and recreation room (together), the kindergarten or the nursery [see Fig. 70].
The construction of the building is lightened (wooden or reinforced-concrete framework with fìbrolite, wood, or organic silicate in-filling) with no partition walls or foundations. The flat roofs are arranged as basins (with no drains).
We try for maximum simplicity and clarity in external appearance and plan. The only decorations are the window boxes under each window for flowers.
In the residential unit, for one square meter of living area there are 4.5–5 cubic meters of volume. This makes it possible to expand the living area per person to 10.5–12 square meters per 55–60 cubic meters of construction per person, including the communal elements.
Without exception all accommodations including baths, corridors, toilets, stairways, etc.—right up to the very top—are lit by direct sunlight.
With very minor structural changes, such a block can be built from brick or almost any other material.
This solution gives one kilometer of road for 2,000 people and demands 5 times less transportation planning than the first (Stroikom) project.
Two schemes of the layout of such blocks are possible (house-communes):
1) In a line along the highway.
2) End-on to the highway—moreover the buildings are situated in separate parallel blocks for from 300 to 600 adults [see Fig. 70]. Each block should be about 100 meters from the next. This would mean one kilometer for 4,000–8,000 people. In Moscow, in spite of its insane congestion, there are no more people per kilometer of pavement.
All these projects (along with many others) undoubtedly need further elaboration and, in particular, practical testing. One thing is certain: the creative thought of the contemporary architect-engineer must be mobilized to find a better solution to these problems. It is necessary to solve a number of still unclear questions concerning the greatest economic advantage of each alternative plan under different climatic conditions; it is also necessary to search for the shrewdest solutions to the plan, for new combinations, etc., etc.