10 BLOCKING OUT THE LIVING CELLS AND INSTITUTIONS

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:

ONE STORY CORRIDORLESS DWELLING BY STROIKOM, RSFSR1

^{35. LAYOUT OF THE PROJECT.}

^{36. LAYOUT OF THE PLAN}2

^{37. LAYOUT OF THE PLAN}

ONE STORY CORRIDORLESS DWELLING BY STROIKOM, RSFSR3

1. A one-story corridorless block (proposed by Stroikom RSFSR, Figs. 24–55) in which the residential units are arranged in one uninterrupted ribbon, and, moreover, each unit has a separate entrance underneath the house—which is up on pilotis. Stations of the transportation routes with attendant communal facilities are placed at certain intervals in front of and parallel to this [continuous] dwelling body. The station is connected with the dwelling body by a covered walkway. An extension of this walkway connects the dwelling body and the station with the children’s residence (nurseries and kindergartens are placed in a checkerboard pattern). This arrangement is suitable for agricultural enterprises in the south, although it suffers from severe shortcomings; it requires a very complicated movement system (for every 300 people, one kilometer of road). Thanks to the absence of corridors, this system gives an exceptionally good economic relationship between the square meters of dwelling area and the cubic volume of the building (about 3.2), which makes it possible to expand the living space per person to 14 cubic meters; however, this is exclusive of the building of auxiliary facilities for each group of rooms (auxiliary kitchens, boilers, etc.).

(COMMUNAL BODY) STATION

^{38. AXONOMETRIC VIEW.}4

^{39. SECTION.}

^{40. FAÇADE.}

COMMUNAL BODY
VARIANT 2

^{41. AXONOMETRIC VIEW.}

^{42. PLAN OF GROUND FLOOR}

^{43. PLAN OF SECOND FLOOR.}

^{44. FAÇADE.}

^{45. SECTION.}

^{46. FACADE.}

^{47. SECTION.}

CLUB

^{48. AXONOMETRIC VIEW.}5

^{49. PLAN OF GROUND FLOOR}

^{50. PLAN OF SECOND FLOOR}

^{51. PLAN OF THIRD FLOOR}

CLUB

^{52. REST AND CULTURE PARK.}6

^{53. SECTION.}

^{54. FACADE.}

^{55. FACADE.}

OSA SETTLEMENT

^{56. LAYOUT.}

2. A system of separate houses for 32 people each with 2 per room (proposed by OSA, see Figs. 56–58).7 The communal quarters are laid out in a hall with two glass walls, and the arrangement is not linked to the roadways but depends exclusively on local topography. Besides those mentioned in the previous project, a disadvantage is an extremely unsatisfactory relationship of the area to the cubic content of the buildings.

SETTLEMENT OSA

^57.^BLOCK.^{(PLAN, AXONOMETRIC VIEW, FACADE, AND SECTION)}

^58.^{MODEL OF THE OSA SETTLEMENT.}

OSA SKYSCRAPERS

^59.

3. The same solution but with “skyscrapers” (see Figs. 59–64).8
Besides the aforementioned shortcomings, must be added the expensive elevators and the complicated construction of the building.

4. The same solutions but with bigger blocks; in part this will correct the aforementioned defects.

^60.

^{61. GENERAL VIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT.}^SKYSCRAPERS.

OSA
SCHOOL DORMITORY

^{62. FACADE.}

^{63. PLAN OF GROUND FLOOR.}

^{64. PLAN OF SECOND AND FOURTH FLOORS.}

5. Finally we come to the projects that we have worked out in two variations for a three-story block for 400–800 people (see Figs. 21–23 and 65–72).9

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.