Paper short abstract:

This paper discusses about urban environmental and anthropological features of post-industrial residential areas in Russian cities and compares the lifestyles of their inhabitants in different areas: historical, industrial, mass buildings (contemporary) and traditional in the cities. This paper includes results of a case of Arkhangelsk.

Paper long abstract:

Field research of the past worked-houses (or post-industrial residential) areas describes different types of districts, features of urban environmental conditions, and lifestyles of local people Goal of the survey explains what is closer to Russian individual housing areas: American suburbia, Russian traditional villages or it is a special form of the urban environment. Furthermore, which patterns show resemblance with other neighboring areas? How is this aspect link with a location in the city’s structure? As a result, the following patterns were obtained. The study is based on field research in Arkhangelsk (January 2021) and comparative analysis. The results show the outcomes of slow rethinking and the transformation process [Ringel, 2018]. For instance, there are different areas and formed local stratification.

1. Local investors and households run expand new building in non-used land make unconstrained and abruptly high-density development of this area. The areas, which predominate single-family houses, become like American suburbia and develop nowadays.

2. Likewise, the individual residential building develops on the non-used land and wasteland near the last working-areas.

3. The absence of formal rules and the chaotic privatization cause of living significant part of people in destroying houses. The 26 thousand citizens live in barracks and mass wooden houses, which are intended approximately for 4-8 families. This type of building saves traditional aspects of the environment. For example, lifestyle, decorations, using improvised means [Baum & co, 1988]. It looks like a traditional Russian village.

Finally, this research is significant for post-Soviet urban studies, because the paper illustrates the continuity of postindustrial areas and adaptational process to the contemporary city [Kearns, Whistley, 2017].