MOSCOW, 25 June 2024. Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) presents the results of a survey devoted to housing conditions of Russians and their readiness to move to another place.

Multistoreyed houses and conveniences  

According to a June survey conducted by VCIOM, Russians largely live in multistoreyed houses (66%). Thirty-four percent of Russians live in a house built in the Soviet era, including houses built in 1970-80s (21%), khrushchevkas (10%), stalinkas (3%); a further 30% say they live in modern houses built in the post-Soviet era (including houses built in the 1990s and later (17%); houses built in the 2010s (2%), and new-build houses not older than five years (11%). Very few respondents say they live in a house with history built before the revolution (2%).

As to the number of storeys, 24% say they live in low-rise houses (up to 4 storeys); 33%, mid-rise buildings (5-8 storeys), where an overwhelming majority of respondents are dwellers of multistoreyed houses (43%) (9 storeys and higher; houses up to 75 meters high).

The three most common facilities dwellers of multistoreyed houses have access to (based on their statements) are as follows: children playground (67%), landscaped yard (43%), ground parking for the residents and video surveillance system (35%, each).  Every third respondent mentions outdoor workout area in the yard of their house (32%); every fourth, separate collection of waste (27%) and ramps for strollers (26%); every fifth, storerooms (21%). Fewer respondents mention panoramic glazing (10%), “yard without cars” (9%), entrance gate checkpoint (8%) and underground parking (7%). Fifteen percent of respondents do not have any of those facilities.

Schools, kindergartens, parks and other facilities

The essentials include educational facilities (kindergarten, school) and public transport; a majority of respondents can access these facilities within a walking distance (86% and 83% of residents of multistoreyed buildings). Seventy-three percent of respondents say there is a children playground within a 15-20-minute walk; 68%, point out green area (wood, park, walking area); 64%, polyclinic for adults; 59%, café and bar. And although most of respondents say there are enough kindergartens and schools, children’s clubs and polyclinics for children may be lacking within a walking distance according to the residents of multistoreyed buildings (59%, each). The same can be applied to fee-based medical services (58%), and sport infrastructure (pool, gym, fitness club) (57%).

Period of construction matters

Comfortable public space and infrastructure can be connected to the following factors:

1. Location. Residents of Moscow and St Petersburg living in multistoreyed houses have more benefits: landscaped area (59%), video surveillance system (54%), outdoor workout area (46%), ramps for strollers (44%). They less often point out shortage of children’s playgrounds nearby (84%), green infrastructure (82%), cafés and bars (75%) and commercial health care center (74%).
2. Type of building. Modern developers are good at considering the interests of different types of residents ranging from car owners to parents with small kids: residents of modern buildings (not older than five years) are the ones who report having the above-mentioned facilities (the top five most popular facilities are children’s playground (87%), video surveillance system (62%), landscaped area (60%), ramps (56%) and ground parking (53%).

Surroundings of the modern multistoreyed houses (built in the 1990s and later) are better equipped with facilities than the old housing stock (pre-revolutionary houses and the Soviet era houses).  Their residents are more likely to point out having clubs and activities for children (64% vs. 55% of those living in old houses), commercial health service centers (63% vs. 53%), wood, park, walking area (72% vs. 65%), аnd dog walking areas (29% vs. 21%) located nearby.

Private houses are equipped with social infrastructure

Three in ten respondents live in a privately-owned house (including countryside house, townhouse) – 30%; 58% of rural area residents, 53% of those living in Southern Federal District and 56% of those living in North Caucasus Federal District report so. This type of housing is common among older generation (39% of the 45-59-year-olds; 34% of those aged 60+), those with average and low income (32% and 33%, respectively).  

Along with grocery (87%), other common infrastructure facilities close to private houses are kindergarten or secondary school and public transport stop; these facilities are accessible to 83% and 71% (respectively) of those living in a private sector within a ten-minute car ride. Sixty-eight percent of respondents mentioned green area; 65%, playground; 64%, polyclinic for adults; 61%, bank office or ATM. Pick-up points are also accessible, along with polyclinic for children and kids’ clubs (57%, 56% and 55% respectively). Least common facilities near the private sector are cafés, bars (47%) and workout facilities (pool, gym, fitness center) (46%).  

Russians show high attachment to their place of residence

Six in ten respondents are willing to stay in the same house even if they had an opportunity to move (60%). Thirty-eight percent of respondents would be willing to move, mainly within the same locality, (20%, including 12% within the same neighborhood; 8%, to another neighborhood.  A further 5% could move to another locality within the same region; 9%, to another region.  

Residents of private houses are more likely than others to be attached to their home – 75% say they want to live the same place where they live right now (vs 57% of residents of modern houses and 54% of those living in old houses). The latter often would like to move to another house within their neighborhood (17% of the old housing stock).

As stated above, a willingness to change place of residence is not only caused by house type but also respondent’s age: young respondents aged 18-24 tend to be more willing to move within their neighborhood  (21% vs. 12% of total respondents), to another neighborhood (15% vs. 8%) or even to another country (13% vs. 4%), whereas those aged 60+ prefer to leave things as they are (78%).

Who is ready to move?

As the young persons, Russians with higher education diplomas are also willing to change their place of residence (44% vs. 35% of those with secondary professional education), those who assess their financial situation as bad or very bad (53% vs. 35% of those who assess their financial situation as good) and residents of large cities (17% of persons living in cities with over 100 thousand inhabitants, 14%, less than 100 thousand inhabitants and urban-type settlements).

All-Russian VCIOM-Sputnik telephone survey was conducted 14 June, 2024. A total of 1,600 respondents aged 18 and older took part in the survey. Survey method: telephone interviews, stratified random sample based on a complete list of mobile phone numbers in use in Russia. The data were weighted for socio-demographic characteristics. The margin of error at a 95% confidence level does not exceed 2.5%. In addition to sampling error, minor changes to the wording of questions and different circumstances arising during the fieldwork can introduce bias into the survey.

Key effectiveness indicators, survey of 14 June, 2024:  cooperation rate (CR)* = 0.7785; minimum response rate (MRR)** = 0.0116; response rate (RR)*** = 0.0427. Calculations are based on corporate standard https://profi.wciom.ru/principy_standarty/korporativnyj-standart-po-izmereniyu-rezultativnosti-oprosov-sputnik-vciom/

* CR: the number of complete interviews divided by the sum of: а) complete interviews and b) non-interviews with eligible respondents.

** MRR: the number of complete interviews divided by the sum of: а) complete interviews, b) interrupted interviews after successful screening and c) all the respondents where it is unknown whether they meet the selected criteria or not.

 ** RR is calculated in the same way as MRR, with the only difference that the number of respondents with unknown eligibility decreases proportional to the percentage of eligible cases in the total number of respondents with identified eligibility or non-eligibility.