Comfort-Level Analysis of Large-Panel Mass Housing in Almaty

The 1960s to early 1990s marked a pivotal era in Kazakhstan’s mass housing history, particularly in Almaty, which was driven by a sector-wide policy shift toward apartment-based occupancy, regulated space standards, full utility provision, and organised residential courtyards. Large-panel buildings from this period still comprise over one-third of Almaty’s housing stock, yet their alignment with modern comfort standards remains understudied. This study establishes a historical periodisation of Almaty’s large-panel housing and assesses its comfort levels at apartment and built-environment scales. The two-part methodology combined a theoretical strand (comfort-level theory, literature review, historical retrospective, and periodisation) with an analytical strand (comparative graphical-analytical assessment of series 1Kz-464-AS, 1Kz-464-DS, 69, E-147 and 158), converging in a Basic–Supplementary–Advanced comfort classification. The results of the current study showed that three sub-periods emerged. Series 1Kz-464-AS and 1Kz-464-DS used a narrow-bay (2.6–3.2 m), economy-driven two-bay system with minimal zoning. Series 69 widened bays to 3.6–5.4 m, improving spatial comfort and utility provision. Series E-147 and 158 introduced a three-bay scheme with an added 2.1 m bay and raised ceilings (3.0 m), yielding the most flexible layouts. At the urban scale, microdistrict planning enlarged planning units by 7–10 times, preserved green connectivity through mid-rise buildings, and shielded courtyards using perimeter high-rises, supporting walkable, infrastructure-rich neighbourhoods. Apartment-scale comfort improved incrementally through bay widening rather than layout diversification, leaving persistent redevelopment constraints from panel structures. Built-environment comfort, however, reached a comparatively advanced, durable standard. Adaptive reuse should prioritise structural refurbishment, reduced occupancy density, courtyard–microdistrict continuity, and diversified public-space functions. This study’s results can inform renovation strategies for Soviet-era housing across post-Soviet cities.