Kolektif Formdan Feda Bölgesine: Sovyetler Sonrası Moskova’da Khrushchevka’nın Üç Tarihsel Yaşamı ve Kurgulanmış Eskimenin Politik Ekonomisi

Öz

Bu makale, Moskova Yenileme Programı’nın (2017-2032) otuz yıllık bir sürecin nihai aşamasını temsil ettiğini ileri sürmektedir. Bu süreç boyunca Sovyet dönemi Khrushchevka konutları, uygun bir bakım altyapısı oluşturulmaksızın özelleştirilmiş; süreklilik gösteren yatırımsızlık yoluyla giderek daha kırılgan hale getirilmiş; bilinçli bir söylemsel üretimle “işlevini yitirmiş ve eskimiş yapılar” olarak tanımlanmış; nihayetinde ise, arazi değeri üzerindeki denetimin yeniden düzenlendiği ve bu denetimin devlet ile gayrimenkul geliştirme sermayesinin oluşturduğu ittifaka aktarıldığı bir yeniden geliştirme süreci kapsamında yıkılmıştır. Makale, Yenileme Programı’nı yalnızca bir refah artırımı ya da bir yönetişim skandalı olarak ele alan yaygın yaklaşımların aksine, temel mekanizma olarak “kurgulanmış eskime” kavramını önermekte ve bu kavramı, binaların doğal yapısal ömrünü tamamlamasından ziyade politika kararları, kurumsal çözülme ve söylemsel yeniden tanımlama süreçleri aracılığıyla ortaya çıkan bir yapısal bozulma biçimi olarak ele almaktadır. Yöntemsel olarak makale, birincil hukuki ve siyasi kaynakların incelenmesini, Sovyet ve post-Sovyet konut alanına ilişkin ikincil akademik literatürle bir araya getiren niteliksel tarihsel-mimari bir analiz sunmaktadır. Konut politikası tarihi ve post-sosyalist kent çalışmaları literatüründen yararlanan makale, Khrushchevka’yı üç ayrı tarihsel yaşamı içinde izlemektedir: Sovyet mekânsal ideolojisinin bir temsili olarak (1954-1991), matruk bir altyapı olarak (1991-2017) ve bir feda bölgesi olarak (2017- ). Yerine inşa edilen yüksek katlı yapılar, devlet öncülüğündeki yeniden geliştirme sürecinin parti ideolojisi yerine piyasa estetiği aracılığıyla meşrulaştırıldığı bir mekânsal form olarak okunmaktadır: üretim bakımından standartlaştırılmış, görünüş bakımından sahte çeşitlilik taşıyan ve işleyiş mantığı bakımından devlet tarafından idare edilen bir form. Yenileme Programı, Sovyet konutlarının yıkımının yanı sıra, bu konutların dayandığı kolektif mülkiyetin ve mekânsal yaşam düzeninin dağılmasını da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu süreçte, yıkımı mümkün ve gerekli kılan önceki politika kararları da görünürlüğünü yitirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• devlet-sermaye ittifakı
• mekânsal ideoloji
• Mikrorayon
• Sovyet sonrası konut
• yıkım siyaseti

Destekleyen Kurum

Finansal destek bulunmamaktadır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik kurul iznine gerek yoktur.

Teşekkür

Teşekkür edilecek kişi veya kurum bulunmamaktadır.

From Collective Form to Sacrifice Zone: The Khrushchevka’s Three Lives and the Political Economy of Constructed Obsolescence in Post-Soviet Moscow

Öz

This article argues that Moscow’s Renovation Program (2017-2032) represents the culmination of a thirty-year process. During this period, Soviet Khrushchevka housing was privatized without proper maintenance infrastructure, gradually made more vulnerable through sustained disinvestment, declared obsolete through continuous discourse, and ultimately demolished within a redevelopment process that also reorganized and transferred control of land value to a developer-state complex. This article challenges the common view of the Renovation as solely a welfare enhancement or a governance scandal. Instead, it introduces the idea of constructed obsolescence as the key mechanism: a form of structural deterioration caused by policy decisions, rather than the natural limits of the buildings. Methodologically, the article conducts a qualitative historical-architectural analysis, combining close readings of primary legal and political sources with secondary scholarship on Soviet and post-Soviet housing. Drawing on housing policy history and post-socialist urban studies, the article traces the Khrushchevka through three distinct historical lives: as Soviet spatial ideology (1954-1991), as abandoned infrastructure (1991-2017), and as a sacrifice zone (2017-present). The replacement high-rises are read as the spatial form through which state-led development is legitimated by market aesthetics rather than party ideology: standardized in production, pseudo-diverse in appearance, and state-administered in logic. The Renovation does not simply demolish Soviet housing; it demolishes the collective form of tenure, maintenance, and spatial life that Soviet housing embodied, while obscuring the policy history that made demolition seem necessary.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• developer-state
• spatial ideology
• Mikrorayon
• post-Soviet housing
• politics of demolition

Destekleyen Kurum

There is no financial support available.

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval is not required for this study.

Teşekkür

There is no individual or institution to thank.

Kaynakça

1. Archis. (2009, March 1). Industrialised building speech, 1954. https://archis.org/volume/industrialised-building-speech-1954/
2. Borisova, E., Smyth, R., & Zakharov, A. (2024). Autocratic policy and the accumulation of social capital: The Moscow Housing Renovation Program. American Political Science Review, 118(3), 1110–1130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000941
3. Büdenbender, M., & Zupan, D. (2017). The evolution of neoliberal urbanism in Moscow, 1992–2015. Antipode, 49(2), 294–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12266
4. Central Committee of the CPSU & Council of Ministers of the USSR. (1955, November 4). Ob ustranenii izlishestv v proektirovanii i stroitel'stve [On the elimination of excesses in design and construction] (Decree No. 1871).
5. Chernysheva, L. (2019). Rossiyskoe getto: Voobrazhaemaya marginalnost novykh zhilykh rayonov [Russian ghetto: The imaginary marginality of new housing estates]. Gorodskiye Issledovaniya i Praktiki, 4(2), 37–58.
6. Federal Law. 141-FZ. (2017, July 1). O vnesenii izmeneniy v Zakon Rossiyskoy Federatsii "O statuse stolitsy Rossiyskoy Federatsii" i otdelnyye zakonodatelnyye akty Rossiyskoy Federatsii [On amendments to the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Status of the Capital of the Russian Federation" and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation]. Official Internet Portal of Legal Information. http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201707010003
7. Ghertner, D. A. (2015). Rule by aesthetics: World-class city making in Delhi. Oxford University Press.
8. Gunko, M., Bogacheva, P., Medvedev, A., & Kashnitsky, I. (2018). Path-dependent development of mass housing in Moscow, Russia. In D. B. Hess, T. Tammaru, & M. van Ham (Eds.), Housing estates in Europe: Poverty, ethnic segregation and policy challenges (pp. 289–311). Springer.

9. Harris, S. E. (2013). Communism on tomorrow street: Mass housing and everyday life after Stalin. Woodrow Wilson Center Press; Johns Hopkins University Press.
10. Ilchenko, M., & Kinossian, N. (2025). Re-Evaluating Heritage, Rethinking Identity: Transformations of Socialist-Era Residential Areas in Eurasia. Europe-Asia Studies, 77(7), 1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2025.2554018
11. Kalyukin, A., & Kohl, S. (2020). Continuities and discontinuities of Russian urban housing: The Soviet housing experiment in historical long-term perspective. Urban Studies, 57(8), 1768–1785.
12. Khmelnitskaya, M., & Ihalainen, E. (2021). Urban governance in Russia: The case of Moscow territorial development and housing renovation. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(6), 1149–1175.
13. Kommersant. (2019, October 24). Renovatsiya beret novyye vysotki [Renovation takes on new high-rises]. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4134887
14. Kosareva, N., & Struyk, R. (1993). Housing privatization in the Russian Federation. Housing Policy Debate, 4(1), 81–100.
15. Kosareva, N., Polidi, T., & Puzanov, A. (2013). Ekonomika sfery nedvizhimosti [Economics of the real estate sector]. Institut Ekonomiki Goroda.
16. Kremlin. (2017, February 21). Meeting with Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin [Transcript]. President of Russia, Official Web Portal. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/53915
17. London, B. (1932). Ending the depression through planned obsolescence. Self-published pamphlet.
18. Mihaylov, V., & Ilchenko, M. (Eds.). (2023). Post-utopian spaces: Transforming and re-evaluating urban icons of socialist modernism. Routledge.
19. Mizrokhi, E. (2021). Living in anachronistic space: Temporalities of displacement in Moscow’s Soviet-era standardized housing. Political Geography, 91, 1–10.
20. Mizrokhi, E. (2025). Ghosts in the Stairwell: Anticipating Terminal Urban Change in Moscow’s Khrushchevki. Architecture and Culture, 13(1–2), 82–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/20507828.2025.2557682
21. Moscow City Government. (2022). Housewarming parties all over Moscow, urban block development and social infrastructure: The Renovation Program results in 2022. mos.ru. https://www.mos.ru/en/news/item/118669073/
22. Murawski, M. (2022). Falshfasad: Infrastructure, materialism, and realism in wild-capitalist Moscow. American Ethnologist, 49(4), 461–477.
23. Nutt, B., Walker, B., Holliday, S., & Sears, D. (1976). Obsolescence in housing. Saxon House.
24. Paperny, V. (2002). Architecture in the age of Stalin: Culture two. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1985)
25. PIK Group. (n.d.). History [Corporate history]. Retrieved June 2026.
26. Prak, N. L., & Priemus, H. (1986). A model for the analysis of the decline of postwar housing. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 10(1), 1–7.
27. Reid, S. E. (2006). Khrushchev modern: Agency and modernization in the Soviet home. Cahiers du Monde Russe, 47(1–2), 227–268.
28. Reid, S. E. (2012). Everyday aesthetics in the Khrushchev-era standard apartment. Etnofoor, 24(2), 78–105.
29. Sapunova, M. (2025). From apartments to land: Fragmented property transitions in Soviet-era urban residential districts. Planning Perspectives, 40(5), 1261–1283.
30. Sapunova, M., Gladkova, E., Malko, A., & Engel, B. (2025). Living in Soviet Housing Estates: Urban Space, Transformation and Multiple Narratives. Europe-Asia Studies, 77(7), 1172–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2025.2533464
31. Snopek, K. (2015). Belyayevo forever: A Soviet microrayon on its way to the UNESCO list. DOM Publishers.
32. Sobyanin, S. (2024). Renovation Program offers a new level of comfort [Telegram post]. @mos_sobyanin.
33. Trouillot, M.-R. (1995). Silencing the past: Power and the production of history. Beacon Press.
34. Varga-Harris, C. (2015). Stories of house and home: Soviet apartment life during the Khrushchev years. Cornell University Press.
35. Zavisca, J. R. (2012). Housing the new Russia. Cornell University Press.
36. Zhelnina, A. (2019a). “Getto v khoroshem smysle” protiv “betonnogo getto”: Rayonnyye diskursy i renovatsiya v Moskve [“Ghetto in a good sense” vs. “concrete ghetto”: Neighbourhood discourses and renovation in Moscow]. Gorodskiye Issledovaniya i Praktiki, 4(2), 21–36.
37. Zhelnina, A. (2019b). Zashchitnik khrushchevki, yego rech i yego plakat: Diskurs i etnografiya antirenovatsionnogo protesta v Moskve [The defender of the khrushchevka, his speech and his placard: Discourse and ethnography of the anti-renovation protest in Moscow]. Gorodskiye Issledovaniya i Praktiki, 4(2).
38. Zhelnina, A. (2023). Making urban futures at your kitchen table: Temporalities of an urban renewal controversy in Moscow. City and Community, 22(2), 158–176.
39. Zupan, D., Smirnova, V., & Zadorian, A. (2021). Governing through stolichnaya praktika: Housing renovation from Moscow to the regions. Geoforum, 120, 155–164.