Do new buildings meet the requirements of comfortable housing

118292491_2152567494887948_358572001854315955_o.png“In a number of projects, one can still find communications similar to those installed in Khrushchev buildings. The same applies to apartment layouts "

How are modern new buildings erected - do they meet all the requirements for comfortable housing? Unfortunately, obsolete planning and engineering solutions are often hidden under the facade. Dmitry Yatsenko, representative of the Metropolis company, especially for Novostroy-M, spoke about the main problems of housing construction today, and also explained why it is so important to reduce the number of storeys of houses and high-quality improvement.

  • Where are the norms for the construction of modern high-rise buildings fixed? How long is their life according to standards?

All basic building codes relating to the construction of residential buildings are spelled out in the codes of practice (SP), GOSTs and FZ, primarily in the federal law No. 123 "Technical regulations on fire safety requirements." As for the standard service life, the recommended terms are prescribed in GOST 27751-2014: for buildings and structures of mass construction, they are at least 50 years.

However, for each object, when designing, its own estimated service life must be determined. Often, it can be more than the recommended normative due to ensuring the durability of the building structures.

  • What are the real lifetimes of new buildings? Is it possible to evaluate them from a practical point of view today?

On average, the service life of mass construction facilities is about 100 years. However, depending on the underlying design solutions, the quality of work during construction and during current and major repairs, the service life of buildings and structures can vary greatly. The aggressiveness of the environment also contributes.

The experience of mass-produced houses built in the USSR shows that they all withstood the service life laid down in the design, and continue to serve today.

s1200.jpg 754967423881854.jpg ZgAAAgGKZeA-1920.jpg

  • What are the main problems of modern housing construction?

A whole range of problems can be identified, including low qualifications of builders and, as a result, low level of work performance, as well as savings on the quality of building materials.

Another problem is that many projects of mass housing construction at the time of their commissioning are already morally obsolete in terms of the architectural, planning and engineering solutions incorporated in them. This is, of course, the mistake of the designer and architect, who must think ahead, anticipating what product will be in demand on the market in a few years.

But in the mass segment, many decisions are often made for the sake of economy. For example, in a number of projects one can still find communications similar to those installed in Khrushchev buildings. The same applies to apartment layouts. Many of them still resemble solutions developed in Soviet times - with a small kitchen and long narrow corridors.

The use of standard solutions, of course, simplifies the design process, but does not make the resulting product more in demand among customers. But it is worth noting that the higher the class of the project, the more interesting it is in terms of architectural and engineering solutions.

8ff1b40bfeae72b14c75bebccfe3a20e.png 4d0e3a44465dce7964e31ff49a8a988f.jpg 263d0d1010466c23f556b3f409ce9692.jpg

In addition, the high building density in modern projects, the excessive height of buildings, and often the lack of high-quality landscaping and the necessary infrastructure are worrisome.

In recent years, many studies have been conducted comparing high-rise and mid-rise buildings. They show that mid-rise buildings are ultimately more profitable for the developer, as they require less common areas, which allows an increase in the area of residential premises in the project. And with a decrease in the number of storeys, the building density automatically decreases.

From a psychological point of view, a building with a height of 9-10 floors is optimal. High-rise accents are acceptable to create a silhouette of the quarter. Such proportions of buildings do not put pressure on a person and are well received by residents. But, of course, this is not possible everywhere.

The centers of large cities still gravitate towards dense high-rise buildings due to the lack of land. But on the periphery, the construction of medium and low-rise areas is possible and necessary. It makes no sense to build up the borders of Moscow with a belt of skyscrapers. This will only create new urban planning problems.

Along with the decrease in the number of storeys in new projects, it is necessary to think about a more diverse and high-quality improvement of the local area. Just a lawn and the simplest playground are no longer sufficient.

070a52b81c2c20f8b2f73defa145f331.jpg a287b7a225dab7f69587af8c98a19b6b.jpg 54d2a51d36d86ef4ba3e4745ef2444a8.jpg

Such improvement meets only formal requirements, but is not a component of a high-quality living environment. Projects need to include high-quality landscaping with trees and shrubs, as well as create thematic zones inside the courtyard aimed at different groups of residents - playgrounds for the smallest, a place for quiet recreation for adults, an active games zone in a remote part of the yard.

The concept of a house today goes beyond the apartment and even the front door. The developer must think on the scale of the block, thinking through all the elements of a comfortable living environment - from places for walks to the availability of shops, social facilities, and leisure items within walking distance.

  • Does the class of housing affect the service life? And the construction method? What categories of real estate are safer?

All buildings, regardless of the class of housing, must withstand the standard service life. However, when designing buildings of the premium segment, more progressive and modern solutions are laid.

First of all, we are talking about engineering systems and facade solutions, since they affect the temperature and humidity conditions in which the supporting structures of the building will "work" and, accordingly, extend their "life".

The method of construction is not as important as the quality and level of production of construction and installation works and building materials.

  • What are the terms of operation of the housing stock of the last century? Do they differ by class (Khrushchev, Stalin, etc.)? If so, how?

The service life of the housing stock of the XX century varies greatly depending on the type of houses. So, "stalinkas", depending on the year of construction, should last 125-150 years, but for panel "Khrushchevs" the service life was laid for only 50 years. But they easily surpassed it thanks to the solutions laid down by the designers.

All other series of buildings (brick 60s, panel and block 70-80s, etc.) have an average life of 100 years. Differences in the level of housing quality are also present, and the greatest contrast is seen between the "Stalin" and "Khrushchevs". First of all, this concerns the layouts and footage of apartments, ceiling heights, the presence of elevators, etc.

I will give the standard operating life of buildings of different series:

Pre-war "Stalinkas" - 125 years, standard demolition time - 2050-2070

Post-war "Stalinkas" - 150 years, standard demolition time - 2095-2105

"Khrushchev" - 50 years old, standard demolition time 2005-2015

Brick five-story buildings - 100 years old, standard demolition time 2055-2070

Panel and block 9-16-storey buildings - 100 years, standard demolition time 2055-2080

Modern brick and monolithic - 125-150 years old.

Modern panels are 100-120 years old.

Modern block houses are 100 years old.

The durability period of the building directly depends on the type of structures in which the main structural scheme is solved. As we can see, the most wear-resistant today are monolithic reinforced concrete and brick houses.

Although the modern "socket" has also stepped forward in the durability of life. Stalinist buildings in the monolith, especially post-war ones, will also make up the secondary housing market for a long time due to their durability.

  • In terms of technology, has the life of buildings increased by using modern construction methods?

Most likely, it can be argued that the life of buildings has increased due to the use of modern construction methods, but it takes time for this to be confirmed in practice. It is also important not to forget that the quality of operation is a significant factor, as we see from the experience of buildings in previous centuries.

In recent years, new building materials, new structural and space-planning solutions have appeared, and the segment of internal engineering systems is developing at such a pace that new equipment appears faster than the possibilities of its use.

Construction technologies are also stepping forward directly - new systems for strengthening the foundation pits of buildings, new formwork systems for the monolith appear, and construction equipment does not stand still.

Since the post-war times, the construction time from project to commissioning has also become several times shorter. If earlier a good nine-story brick building was built for about 2 years (and this was a high rate of construction), now in 2 years it is possible to build a small residential quarter, both low-rise buildings and high-rise buildings.

  • Is it possible to say that modern construction is more expensive than a few decades ago?

It is impossible to unequivocally answer the question of the difference in the cost of construction now and several decades ago, since this is influenced by many factors: the cost of building materials and labor, the number and level of engineering systems laid down, their high cost, design costs. At different times, the cost of these parameters was different.

The cost of construction in different periods of time is difficult to compare also because too different factors influenced this process. In the 60-80s, the cost was mainly formed by manual labor (the technique was not so developed and more labor was required). Materials were produced longer and in smaller quantities, design lasted several times longer and was more labor-intensive than today, but the cost of building land was lower.

Now we have more automation at the construction site, materials are much more affordable, but land is becoming more expensive in proportion to the growing demand for housing.

Housing requirements have also changed. To the generation that was born after 2000, you will no longer sell a Khrushchev with low ceilings, tiny kitchens, no soundproofing and an ugly facade. This is reflected in design decisions and, as a result, in the cost of construction.

Read material on the portal Novostroy-M