Kyrylo Chuyko: On October 14, there was news from the government about simplification of design and construction of typical projects. The goal was the rapid reconstruction of destroyed housing and social infrastructure (hospitals, schools, kindergartens, administrative buildings) by shortening the design time and reducing the cost of construction. But do we really need typical projects and identical buildings after victory?
Let's start with the history of a typical building that arose after the Second World War, when all of Europe was in ruins and it was necessary to give people a roof over their heads as soon as possible. It should be noted that in Europe, the typical development concerned mainly residential buildings, while social infrastructure was built according to individual projects and very often on a competitive basis.
Already in the 70s, the Western world recognized the fallacy of a uniform approach and mass construction, the process of transition to the usual diverse urban planning began
The typicality of the building was more related to the urban planning aspect — the planning of residential areas, and the buildings themselves were tried to be diverse. Typical buildings became especially common in the countries that were under Soviet occupation: from Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to East Germany, Poland and Hungary. However, already in the 70s, the Western world recognized the fallacy of a uniform approach and mass construction, the process of transition to the usual diverse urban planning began, which primarily aims to create comfortable conditions for people, not the number of square meters and the maximum cost reduction of construction. In our country, mass construction continued until the 90s.
Currently, there is a discussion in the West about rethinking mass construction and correcting the mistakes made, as well as individualizing and humanizing spaces. We received hundreds of thousands of monotonous houses and neighborhoods, which do not differ in almost anything and decay without destruction. They often do not take into account the needs of residents, it is difficult to maintain them, they are morally outdated. And we are offered to repeat the mistakes of 50-70 years ago.
Will typical projects really be cheaper and easier to build? Now the design cost is 2-4% of the construction cost. However, each typical project requires adaptation to a specific construction site and environment. The foundation for each building is developed individually and for specific engineering and geological conditions, each site has a special relief and height difference, its own engineering communications, requirements for the street and road network.
This can significantly affect the placement and appearance of the building. Adaptation of a typical project will allow to reduce this amount by approximately half. Savings in the overall construction budget will be only 1–2%, that is, the savings are very doubtful. It is worth noting that a typical project will require more time and resources for development, as well as constant improvement, since it is impossible to make an ideal project for all requirements at once.
Typical projects do not take into account the context, are inflexible in further development, and create a uniform environment. Cities are losing their individuality and diversity. It is impossible to take into account all nuances and scenarios of use. Regional features of architecture, identification with the area, climatic features, city silhouette are lost. Instead of a high-quality environment, we will get another array of identical "humans".
It should be noted separately that the use of typical projects in public buildings is inadmissible. It is the public and social infrastructure that requires an individual approach, matching the context and place. Such objects must be advanced, use the best solutions, set the bar for the entire construction. But by no means be replicated boxes. It is difficult to imagine copies Sydney Opera House, University of Vienna or Munich Olympic Stadium.
Who benefits from typical projects? It's no secret that in the last few years, even despite the full-scale war, developers want to simplify the rules of the game for themselves as much as possible
Typical design and construction will destroy the architect's profession, turning it into a draftsman who simply arranges identical boxes in a field. This is a potential loss of intellectual potential and the decline of the architectural school. We already observed this in the 90s, when most architects were exclusively engaged in binding typical sections and the creative component almost disappeared. Architects will become completely dependent on the developer, fulfilling his whims and not being able to offer quality solutions. As a result, we will get a faceless and nameless architecture. In the world, buildings are known primarily by the name of the architect, while in our country, the builder comes first, and the architect sometimes does not want to give his name at all.
Who benefits from typical projects? It's no secret that the last few years, even despite the full-scale war, developers want to simplify the rules of the game for themselves as much as possible. Build cities without unnecessary obstacles, instead of creating an environment for people to organize an assembly line and replicate houses with minimal effort, getting maximum profit.
To do this, the Ministry of Regions, through its lobbyists in the Verkhovna Rada, has been trying to implement the notorious for one and a half years draft law 5655, which seek to eliminate architects and the public from designing and making decisions about community development and monopolize the construction industry, pleasing only one stakeholder — developers. This contradicts the principles for which Ukrainians are currently fighting and which are the basis for civil society: human dignity, respect for the individual and human interaction.
In less than 100 years, we already had typical buildings - Khrushchevki, Brezhnevki. Do we still need sleights of hand, or whose name can be called the massive post-war development? The future of Ukraine deserves high-quality, contextual and diverse architecture.
Read also
"9 days for the project? Seriously?". Kyrylo Chuyko details about the KODA competition
