Not wanting to analyze the building of dwelling houses in Estonia inefficiently and seemingly
                    scientifically (where would I have got competent statistics from), I simply try to express the
                    thoughts which are connected with that topics somehow and have come into my mind.
                    What kind of "scientific" analysis it could be or who should make it, if even the architectural
                    critics seem not to manage with the simplest things. That reminds me an article in the EE
                    some time ago about a Finnish lady (naturally in Finland) completing or taking her doctor's
                    degree. She was examining Finnish post-war modern house, it's morphology, the structure
                    of the Finnish family, the connections between them and making conclusions which extend
                    to this day. Those observations about architecture were much more smarter than those
                    that the most of self-confident architects could do. Unfortunately it has to be confessed that
                    I don't remember such a research work or sentiments in Estonian science, but no doubt,
                    they could be necessary. The typology of the houses used by most of the architects goes
                    back to the living model of the middle class at the end of the 19th century. That model was
                    idealized and carried on through a hundred of years up to the end of this century. No doubt
                    that our living style is changing - repeating banalities: paradigm changes - as well as the
                    composition and make-up of the family. There was a news in a newspaper about Estonia
                    which declared that 50 % of the children are illegitimate (it is possible, of course, that some
                    parents live together without getting married officially) and 12,5 % of the born children
                    know nothing about their fathers. The living with grandparents is not so popular any more.
                    (As to the models of living it is worth of observing what has happened in North-America -
                    though some europercentage followers don't accept that - it may happen that we will be
                    on the same development level soon. In that country the grown-up children don't want to
                    live with their fathers and mothers, at least statistically). Even such an every day activity as
                    cooking is changing essentially. An apartment or house is not a small production unit with its
                    storages, kitchen and dining room any more. The kitchen can be as presentable as the
                    dining room, also the furniture and the quality of the activities, they can become more
                    melted. There are some theorists who admit that not only eating but washing procedures
                    as well will leave the house to so-called town-social level. In the house there will be only a
                    bed, a computer for communication and toilet. It won't happen so soon, but one has to
                    keep an eye on that branch of development. Talking into account the above mentioned
                    statements it seems rather logical that the present day "style of living" which is
                    monofunctionally divided into the units, should be replaced by a multifunctional and more
                    universal room. The architects can make their conclusions if they want to. The society is
                    coming more and more complicated, more individual-centered / individualized and that
                    ought to be reflected in the typological and functional development of the house /
                    apartment. The situation in Estonia is a bit curious just now perhaps even ridiculous. On the
                    one hand we have been left a huge amount of apartments - living units, on the other hand
                    these don't satisfy the real needs of the society any more. The problem doesn't lie in the
                    apartment or house, but in that complete, and if you wish, harmonious world where these
                    houses are situated. And that is why it is very difficult to prevent Lasnam�e from turning to a
                    ghetto. The houses can be heated outside and apartments decorated inside, but it gives
                    satisfaction for a short time only. The single coquettish villages built in the old districts
                    between the houses look strange. The dissonance doesn't exist between the houses
                    themselves but between the styles of living. The groups of 5 - 10 houses in the picturesque
                    landscape at the seaside also can't create the complete society if they are situated next to
                    the fishery and sawmills. There are some districts in Estonia where the small houses with
                    more complete treatment have come into being. The suburb romantic idyll is ruling there,
                    also mentally as the motto of the area is to be similar and alike, with no any differences
                    from the thoughts of dear neighbors. Those so-called new-rich who have enough money to
                    build need the house as the symbol of status and they actually don't value the environment.
                    I would like to pay attention to the matter that has annoyed me for some time. I can't
                    understand these critics who treat the houses on the steep banks of Tabasalu with irony,
                    calling them bad PM and admitting that the functionality with stylistics originating from the
                    20ies is not so much PM, and a better one. Of course, that is the question of taste. But if we
                    don't think the stylistics to be the most important and do not throw away inevitably
                    everything "American"; then to be honest, those houses - purely morphologically - are
                    composed very nicely if compared with sisters built somewhere else. The main trouble in
                    that area results in so-called planning, or if you wish - town building. Unfortunately it
                    seems that it is not yet the right time to discuss that complicating matter in Estonia. Mainly
                    the highway engineers are handling these problems and town building as the complex of
                    cultural decisions hasn't been discussed. Actually there is a disagreement between the
                    frequency and character of the houses - that is where to look for main mistakes. But
                    behind that are the desires of the customers, difficulties in getting the ownership of land,
                    stereotype thinking of the planning architect - our cultural background altogether. If to
                    think about the future, keeping an eye on the same cultural background, I have to say that
                    the Estonians, if to express decently, are not too keen to fight the challenge of age (by the
                    way, an excellent opportunity for the apologists of modernism) and taking use of that
                    characteristics at least younger architects could accept the possibilities offered by present
                    time. Certainly not everybody likes these possibilities and only a few real estate agents will
                    be interested, but according to my own experience there are some of them, in Estonia too.
                    It is also important that looking at the things otherwise and spreading that vision we can
                    reach the situation where the words "cheap" and "ecological" have great value. And
                    considering our relatively poverty it is not a bad result at all.