Consider what the Soviets replaced in terms of housing. The people who moved in weren’t giving up a dacha life.
Same holds for US housing projects. People came from cold water tenaments, share cropper shacks with an outhouse out back, and migrant farm labor camps.
They represent a huge improvement in shelter despite their lack of appeal to people of means
My point wasn't that it sucked; my point was that the architecture of ex-USSR countries is still dominated by that style even when the countries moved on.
So there's value in affordable housing with long-term aesthetics. It affects generations of people beyond those whose lives are immediately improved.
Who'd think that a proof-of-concept doesn't yet compete with existing solutions?
>I suspect the reason this is popular is more because they are aesthetically pleasing
We are talking about places people can live in. Aesthetics matter.
The ability to produce something aesthetically pleasing on the cheap and at scale matters.
There is a reason Soviet architecture is the butt of so many jokes. They were rapidly building post-war, with the idea that those buildings will be replaced in two decades.
Many of those buildings are still there.