Content uploaded by Nadiia Antonenko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nadiia Antonenko on Apr 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
INTRODUCTION: The Russo-Ukrainian war of 2022 has made
the issue of the preservation of Ukrainian immovable cul-
tural heritage more acute. Architectural sites are at daily
risk of destruction due to rocket and artillery fire. A greater
threat is posed by military operations to objects whose
status even before the war was not defined as being valu-
able, such as the typical post-Soviet mass housing estates.
In the event of the slightest destruction, there is no question
of rebuilding panel buildings a priori - after the war all the
destroyed buildings will be dismantled.
At the same time, for conservationists of monuments
and architectural heritage, the questions “What will be
built in their place?” and “Will material evidence of an
entire period of world architectural history remain, when
the choice was made in favor of utilitarian provision of
housing after the catastrophic destruction of World War
II?” become unusually acute. After all, the post-Soviet
housing estates in large Ukrainian cities range from 30 to
60 per cent of the total area. They have had a significant
impact on the formation of the modern image of Ukrainian
cities, having become an integral part of them for 70
years. Several generations of citizens have grown up in
the spatial environment of residential areas, who culturally
and socially identify themselves and their families with
these city territories.
The critique of the Soviet housing programs, which
claimed the ‘greyness and facelessness’ of the mass hous-
ing estates and was prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s,
did not reflect the actual state of the situation. Despite pre-
dictions of ghettoisation, Kharkiv’s neighborhoods have
not only managed to adapt to the new market context, but
have also created comfortable living conditions for local
INNOVATORY KHARKIV MASS HOUSING
ESTATES IN URBAN PLANNING OF
THE 1960s-1980s
Nadiia Antonenko
ABSTRACT: The destructions of the Russo-Ukrainian war are leading to a rapid loss of cultural
heritage in Ukraine, including contemporary 20th century monuments in Kharkiv, the cradle
of Ukrainian modernism. At the greatest risk are the sites, which were complex and not well
understood heritage before the war - mass housing estates of 1960s-1980s. In view of the
postwar reconstruction, there is a great need to analyze mass housing estates in Kharkiv as
potential objects of preservation. The purpose of this article is to reveal the architectural and
historical value of the first Kharkiv mass housing estates in terms of their innovation, which might
be the basis for further preservation steps. The article focuses on the three earliest areas of mass
housing estates of the city - Pavlovo Pole, Novi Budynky and Saltovsky mass housing, which were
designed and built during the period of the transition to rapid and large-scale pre-fabricated
industry in the late 1950s - early 1960s. It is namely during the design and construction of these
estates that innovatory technologies and approaches were developed and tested, which were
later used in the construction of new housing estates both in Kharkiv and in other cities of Ukraine.
These innovations included the system of microdistricts, the staggered system of services for the
population, and the method of focusing in urban planning. The creation of a number of standard
series of pioneering residential buildings for mass industrial development by the “Kharkovproject”
and “Ukrmistostroyproject” design institutes. The study is based on the reconstruction of the
historical chronology of design work of 1960’s - 1980’s in the history of Ukrainian city planning;
a comparative analysis of the first-erected housing estates, and the definition of the unique
solutions of Kharkiv city planners that were implemented in the development of the first housing
estates in Kharkiv.
KEYWORDS: mass housing, innovations, Kharkiv, urban transformations, Russo-Ukrainian War
78
JOURNAL 70
residents by forming a local self-identity. Nevertheless,
current challenges make it doubtful that programs of revi-
talization and integrated development of Kharkiv’s mass
housing estates should be developed promptly before the
end of military activity. The most effective tool for the pres-
ervation of Kharkiv’s housing estates during the war and
post-war reconstruction period is the inventorization and
documentation of historical phases of design, construc-
tion and development that demonstrate the uniqueness,
effectiveness and resilience of developments. The doc-
umentation of the developments should be made in the
viewpoint of both positive and negative aspects. The
results of these studies should be taken into account in the
development of new design concepts in their area.
In the 1990s, mass housing estates in the public mind
of Kharkiv citizens began to be perceived as a clear aes-
thetic and socio-functional symbol of totalitarianism, which
must be overcome and eradicated. However, thirty years
after the collapse of the USSR, this symbolic opposition
has softened. The natural changes which have taken place
over the 30 years have partly liberated the urban envi-
ronment of mass housing estates from the clichés imposed
by ideology and, in parallel, acquired new symbolic
and cultural meanings. This is a background for thinking
about the cultural value of mass housing areas, not on the
basis of authenticity and integrity, but by looking at the
resilience of the original concept to the new challenges.
In addition, it is necessary to evaluate the impact of the
housing estates created in the 1950s and 1960s under
the conditions of ideological understanding of the organi-
zation of everyday life, corresponding to the current ideas
about a comfortable urban environment.
That is why now, while military attacks are taking place,
an urgent task for architectural researchers and monument
conservationists is to identify valuable cultural layers of
20th-century Ukrainian architecture and to take proactive
measures for their further preservation. Consideration of
the period of mass industrial construction is one of the
key directions of this study. The importance of this work is
due to the fact that large Ukrainian cities again, as after
World War II, face the choice of strategy for spatial devel-
opment, technological modernization and the beginning
of the reorganization of their urban life.
A unique Ukrainian city whose mass housing estates
should be studied in the first priority is Kharkiv, a Ukrainian
modernist urban laboratory. The first phase of large-scale
housing construction in Kharkiv came at a time when the
city was the capital of the Ukrainian SSR (1919-1934)
and one of the main cities of the Soviet Union. It was at
that time when the search for an optimal housing concept
took place in Kharkiv (Antonenko et al, 2016). In the
post-war 1960s and 1980s, it was Kharkiv that became
the first city in Ukraine to have tested new urban plan-
ning solutions, which led to fundamental changes in the
social organization of city life. Among them: the system
of microdistricts, a staged system of household services,
the method of focusing in urban planning, which were
eventually implemented in the solutions of housing estates
design in other Ukranian cities.
The epoch of Soviet mass pre-fabricated construction
has been widely reflected in the professional literature.
The problem of the preservation of residential areas has
been discussed in the works of P. Moiser (Moiser, Zadorin,
2018), B. Engel (Engel, 2019), N. Liutauras (Liutauras,
2020), M. Glendinning (Glendinning, 2021), F. Urban
(Urban, 2018) and others. The history of Ukrainian urban
planning in the 1960s and 1980s is represented by pub-
lished reports of design institutes (Novikov, 1990), as
well as by the works of S. Shirochin (Shirochin, 2020),
V. Yatsenko (Yatsenko, 2016), and Y. Shkodovsky
(Shkodovsky et al, 2002). N. Mysak opened the topic of
the identity of the housing estate in the example of Sychov
housing estate of Lviv (Mysak, 2018). No less important
are the studies of Ukrainian scientists dealing with: the
problem of revitalization of urban environment of post-so-
viet housing estates - M. Demin (Lavrik, Demin, 1975), A.
Pleshkanovska (Pleshkanovs’ka, 2005), I. Stetsiuk (Stetsiuk,
2016), the analysis of transformation that has occurred
with areas of Ukranian mass housing estates after 1991
(Antypenko, 2021), the problem of historic de-personifica-
tion of urban planning practices of the period (Bouryak,
2017). The issue of innovative approaches during the
period of mass housing is addressed in the recently pub-
lished article by O. Bouryak (Bouryak, 2020), in which
the authors tried to form a holistic picture of changes in
urban planning that took place during the period of mass
industrial development, highlighting the innovative com-
ponent in each of the main aspects of this picture – urban
planning, architectural and typological, engineering and
technological, and social and functional.
The goal of this article is to discover the architectural
and historical value of Kharkiv’s first mass housing districts
and to identify specific signs of innovation, which could
be the basis for further protective steps. The study is based
on the restoration of the historical chronology of design
work in the 1960s - 1980s in the history of Ukrainian
urban planning. The comparative analysis of the first
erected housing estates was carried out, the unique deci-
sions of Kharkiv city planners that were implemented in
Kharkiv were revealed, and the key persons - the organiz-
ers, architects and engineers who contributed most to the
development of Kharkiv of that period were identified.
79
JOURNAL 70
THE REVOLUTIONARY APPROACH OF LEONID
TULPA’S DESIGN TEAM TO THE PLANNING OF
PAVLOVO POLE
In 1967 a new master plan of Kharkiv was approved. It
planned a clear functional division of the city into eight
industrial and residential planning districts, connected
with each other, with the city center, places of employ-
ment, urban and suburban recreation areas. The main
mass housing estates were located in the eastern dis-
tricts and the main industries were in the western districts
(Antonov, 1967). A single subordinated street and road
network of the city was created, with a clear distinction
between the main and local systems. The main directions
laid down in this master plan were implemented during
next twenty years until the late 1980s - mid-1990s, as a
result of which more than ten large-scale mass housing
estates appeared on the map of Kharkiv [FI GURE 01].
The Pavlovo Pole housing estate was Kharkiv’s first poly-
gon to test new methods to fundamentally revise its urban
planning approaches and significantly improve the tech-
nical and economic indicators of housing construction.
Pavlovo Pole was a large housing estate located near
the city center. For a long time it has been considered an
area intended for the resettlement of the “Soviet intelligen-
tsia”. The initial design project of the Pavlovo Pole planning
was developed by the “Khargorproject” design institute
(architects B.G. Kleyn, A.S. Proskurnin, A.P. Pavlenko) as
early as in 1945. Its architectural and planning system
was based on the block type of buildings, specific to the
urban planning of the late Stalin era. By 1954 only a few
two-story houses had been built according to this proj-
ect. In 1954, the project was declared ineffective and
was sent back for reviewing (G. Krykin, L. Tyulpa and
I. Feigin). However, the developed solution retained the
features of the old city block approach, and although the
first three blocks were built, in 1957 the construction was
interrupted (Grigorenko, Tyulpa, 1958).
The adopted project of the housing estate was devel-
oped in 1958 by young specialists L. Tulpa and A.
Grigorenko, who managed to bring the spatial layout as
close as possible to the requirements and tasks set by the
new Party administration. The designers completely aban-
doned the previously accepted principles of organizing
the urban space, which historically referred to the neo-
classical symmetrical geometric schemes. The project was
based on a strict technical-economic analysis. The density
of the buildings was maximized by taking into account
the physical requirements of the urban environment and
the buildings themselves - insolation, ventilation, estimated
proportion of greenery, the number of necessary services
- schools, kindergartens, shops, laundry rooms, etc. Out
of 499 ha, 199.5 ha have been reserved for residential
Northern Saltivka
(since 1984–1990)
Saltivka
(since 1972–1984)
Novi Budunky
(since 1957)
Skhidnyi village
(since 1986)
Soniachnyi
(since 1986)
Rohan village
(1986–1990)
Pototskoho street (1967)
Piatykhatky village
(1956–1992)
Oleksiivka
(1981-1985)
Pavlove Pole
(since 1956)
Sosnova Hirka
(1976–1981)
Nyzhnia Pavlivka
(since 1970)
Kholodna Hora
(1970–1990)
Zaliutyne
(since 1970)
Postysheve
(since 1970)
Kharkiv residential areas
late 1950s and 1960s
1970s
1980s
01 Main Kharkiv mass housing estates of the 1950s - 1980s © Andrii Golovchenko, 2020.
80
JOURNAL 70
buildings, 59 ha for social facilities and 54 ha for public
spaces and greenery [FIGURE 02].
In this approach, the designers decided against frac-
tional block dividing, and the area of the housing estate
was subdivided into five large self-contained microrayons
of 30-50 hectares. The previously built blocks became
part of microrayons Nos. 1 and 2. Schools and kinder-
gartens were located in the center of the microrayons,
grouped around the microrayon gardens. Public service
buildings (shops, canteens, laundries, garages) were
located along the streets that bordered the microrayon. A
network of intra-block dead-end lanes was developed to
provide access roads to the dwellings. Public transport in
the estate consisted of trams, trolleybuses, buses and taxis
(Shpara, 1988).
Not all objects were realized, but the design of the
Pavlovo Pole public center included a stadium for 7000
spectators, an 800-seat auditorium, a 1200-seat cinema,
a hotel, a shopping center, a café, a post office, a depart-
ment store, a telephone office, and a car parking area.
The territory on which the buildings were located was
completely isolated from traffic. On the southern hillside
of Sarzhin Yar, a botanical garden of about 60 ha was
created, and a polyclinic and hospital were built next to
the forest park, which served the entire housing estate
(Tyulpa, 1963).
Thus, in this project Kharkiv city planners were
among the first in Ukraine to implement the principle of
“microrayonning”, the principle of “free planning” and
tested a staged system of public facilities, in which each
microrayon was a self-sufficient urban unit in terms of
daily life services for its residents. A new principle of the
spatial organization of the inner-district community center
was designed, which in terms of the intensity of its func-
tional content was to become a fully-fledged socio-cultural
sub-center of the city. Unfortunately, however, the com-
munit center project was only partly realized due to a
shortage of funding [FIGUR E 03].
The direct link between the planning schemes of the
housing estate and the new type of construction industry
- enterprises of prefabricated assembly line production of
building elements - was also innovative. The composition
of the housing estate was formed on the basis of the avail-
able set of industrial products, which could be produced
by the local newly created house-building factories, allow-
ing them to be folded into the typical serial residential and
public buildings.
02 Detailed planning project of Pavlovo Pole. Last approved option. © Photo of original plan, Nadiia Antonenko.
81
JOURNAL 70
NOVI BUDYNKY AS A BALANCE OF SANITARY
AND HYGIENE NORMS AND HIGH STANDARDS OF
EVERYDAY SERVICES
The Novi Budynky housing estate is located in the
south-eastern part of the city of Kharkiv on the former lands
of the Research Institute of Genetics and Breeding (the
former selection station) on an area of 445.9 ha. The rel-
atively close location of this territory to the large industrial
enterprises, good sanitary-hygienic and natural condi-
tions predetermined its use for housing development. The
dwelling density was up to 3,100 m2/ha for a five-story
building and up to 4,300 m2/ha for a nine-story building.
Two blocks were built according to the design of
architects B. Klein and Y. Nikolaenko (Kharkov branch
of Giprograd), retaining the features of block planning.
The building of the selection station started in 1957. In
1963, the project was redesigned and the housing estate
was divided into two zones, each having a population of
about 150,000. The principle of ‘microrayonning’ was
used for both zones and the territory was divided into 10
microrayons.
Zone A was designed by Ukrgorstroyproject (A.
Motorin, N. Kireeva, Y. Koltsov, A. Nesterenko, etc.)
and Zone B by Kharkovproject (G. Kesler, Y. Plaksiev,
P. Areshkin). Both projects were interconnected, but
their compositional and planning design was different.
Whereas the zone A was characterised by linear structure,
the zone B used completely different planning principles.
For example, microrayons 24 and 25 were character-
ised by long, semi-detached houses arranged in the form
of trefoils (Kireeva et al, 1962).
A distinctive feature of zone B was the use of long
(average length of six sections) and multi-story buildings.
As a results of this planning solution, it was possible to
increase the green space area at high rates of housing
area output. In addition, the pinpoint inclusion of the multi-
story buildings considerably enriched the silhouette of the
housing estate and its architectural expressiveness. This
principle was actively used later in the design of Saltovsky
and Alekseevsky housing estates.
In the planning of Novi Budynky great attention was
paid to the development of an optimal system of green
spaces. The planners managed to bring the greenery
index to a norm of 10 m2 per person, while minimizing
the typology of greenery, combining intra-block gardens
with greenery areas of schools, kindergartens, nurseries,
roads and driveways, thus creating continuous “green cor-
ridors”, running through the entire housing estate (Matorin,
1964). [FIGURE 04].
Novi Budynky are an example of the successful imple-
mentation of a system of staged public services. The
main elements of the system of cultural and household
services for the population of individual microrayons of
Novi Budynky were: primary facilities, consisting of kin-
dergarten buildings and primary health care stations,
which served the population of housing groups located
within a radius of 150-200 meters and everyday facili-
ties, consisting of school buildings and houses of culture
in housing estates, which served the population of the
entire microrayon and located within a radius of 400-
500 meters. The public and commercial center was
conveniently connected to the microrayons - the maximum
03 Pre Russo-Ukrainian war view of the main avenue Pavlovo Pole. © Yevgen Kostiuk, 2021.
82
JOURNAL 70
distance from the dwelling did not exceed 1.5 km. There
were shopping, food and service buildings, a cinema,
a restaurant and the Palace of Culture. The center was
connected by a 100 m wide boulevard with a park, sta-
dium and artificial pond. According to local respondents,
they really rarely travelled to the center - everything they
needed was within walking distance, unlike residents of
Pavlovo Pole, who were forced to travel to the city center
almost every day due to the limited range of household
and cultural services.
THE “FOCUSING” SYSTEM OF THE SALTOVSKY
HOUSING ESTATE: ACHIEVING THE LIMIT VALUES OF
THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS
The development of Ukraine’s largest housing estate con-
sisting of thirteen microrayons began in 1968. By 2018
there were over 400,000 people living there.
It was in the planning of the Saltovsky housing estate
that Kharkiv’s urban planners developed and first applied
the ‘focusing’ method. This method was based on the idea
of concentrating socio-cultural, commercial and household
facilities near public transport stops and major transport
hubs, with appropriate calculation of accessibility radi-
uses. This method allowed the extension of the network
of main highways, reduced the number of crossings,
increased the distance between transport stops to 800-
900 m, reduced the number of stops and increased the
speed of communication by up to 20% (Tyulpa, 1964)
[FIGURE 05].
The ‘focusing’ method made fundamental adjustments
to the microrayon system and virtually removed the ‘first
priority’ of the intra-microrayon service system as a plan-
ning principle. These adjustments to the ideology and
practice of microrayon planning were a recognition of the
principle of human mobility in the modern city and a de
facto rejection of the principle of linking the service system
to the place of residence. Further implementation and
development of the method can be seen in such Ukrainian
large-scale mass housing estates as Troyeschyna in Kyiv
(1981-1991) and Tairova in Odesa (1968-1986).
Typological innovations can also be found in the
designing of Kharkiv’s own series of industrial housing.
These design developments of the “Kharkovproekt” and
“Ukrmistostroyproekt” coexisted with the optimization
04 Pre-war view of Novi Budynky. © Yevgen Kostiuk, 2021.
05 Focusing scheme of residential area No. 5 of Saltovsky mass housing estates. © Tyulpa L.
(1973) New planning solutions in the development of Saltovskyi large-scale housing estate.
In: Stroitel’stvo i arkhitektura. Vol 4.
83
JOURNAL 70
approach that prevailed in the adaptation and partial
modifications of the “all-union” series, in particular in the
work on series II-57, the base for house-building plant
DSK-1. Technical and technological innovation was con-
centrated in the creation and cyclic modernization of the
production of vibro-rolled panels, significantly more eco-
nomical in comparison to frame-panel structures.
At Kharkiv DSK-1, the first house-building factory in
Ukraine, three vibro-rolling mills BPS-6 were installed.
An innovation was the transition to an assembly line
technology for the production of large panels and the
corresponding operating technology for the assembly of
finished houses. The innovations in the technological pro-
cesses for the production and processing of assembly units
were largely focused on finding ways of replacing wet
processes. Much effort has been made, in particular, to
realize fully factory-assembled sanitary cabins.
The rate of construction in Kharkiv in 1970-1980s
was very high thanks to technological innovations. About
320-480 thousand sq.m. of dwelling were commissioned
annually. There were cases, when a nine-story building
was ready for occupation after 32 days. By the mid-
1980s the housing crisis in Kharkiv had almost completely
disappeared.
CONCLUSION
Mass housing development radically changed the face
of all post-war Ukrainian cities. However, the scale of
the transformation and its value remains undervalued.
Meanwhile, the mass housing program that was imple-
mented in Kharkiv was a definite response to the post-war
housing crisis. Its implementation allowed the creation
of acceptable living conditions for millions of people in
a short period. When the value of such objects can be
evaluated, the conditions of their creation, space-plan-
ning solutions, and technological innovations can be
taken into account. Technological approaches and meth-
ods, which were developed by Kharkiv scientific-research
institutes, were innovative and experimental. The usage
of particular technologies during the short period of the
1950s-1960s allowed the architectural and construction
industry to reach an increasing speed of construction and
a higher quality. The research and historical and architec-
tural description of Kharkiv in the epoch of mass industrial
development should solve the same problem in relation to
the 1960s-1980s, as the research of the heroic epoch of
avant-garde of the 1920s-1930s, which was developed
in recent years.
Novy Budynky and Pavlovo Pole were the first housing
estates, where various experimental layouts of microray-
ons with perfect territorial balance (dwellings and
adjacent territories, public green spaces, areas education
institutions, service and public facilities, socio-cultural
institutions, as well as areas of passages) and minimally
reduced construction costs were worked out. The design
results obtained were taken into account in the planning
of later housing estates and in the deployment and set-
ting up of a huge machine of house-building factories.
The Saltovsky housing estate is the ultimate form of tech-
no-economic rationalism in Ukrainian urban planning of
the Soviet period. The Kharkiv city planners managed to
get as close as possible to the lower limit of the Soviet
norms of designing housing estates, providing the max-
imum amount of living space, with minimal costs for the
06 Destroyed multi-story houses of Northern Saltivka. © Victory Gritsayenko, 2023.
84
JOURNAL 70
construction of cultural and entertainment facilities and
consumer services, while remaining within the approved
state building codes and sanitary standards.
After the Russo-Ukrainian war, on the basis of the his-
torical and inventory work begun, it will be possible to
carry out a multifaceted study, which should include: a
detailed inventory of the buildings that have survived, a
sociological and demographic study, the development
of local safety programs, an analysis of changing intra-
city logistics, prospects for economic development and
the identification of ecological threats. This study will jus-
tify the rationale for preserving the existence of material
evidence of each housing estate and its parts, and, if
necessary, develop a methodology for the preservation
and renovation of Ukraine’s mass housing areas. Perhaps,
given the scale of the expected urban transformation,
Kharkiv could become an innovative urban site for the
third time in its history.
REFERENCES
ALFEROV I., Antonov V., Lyubarsky R. (1977). Formation of Urban
Realm (in the Context of Kharkiv). Moscow: Stroyizdat. p 104
ANTONENKO, N., Bouryak, O., Didenko, C. (2016). Residential
Housing in Kharkov (Ukraine), 1920-1935. In: ZARCH: Journal
of interdisciplinary studies Architecture and Urbanism, pp.
68-85.
ANTONOV V. (1967). Architectural and planning organization
of the city. Kharkov. In: Stroitel’stvo i arkhitektura. No. 6. S.
12-13. Kyiv.
ANTYPENKO, H., Antonenko, N., & Didenko, K. (2021). Urban
Transformations of Kharkiv’s Large Housing Estates •,Építés -
Építészettudomány(published online ahead of print 2021).
Retrieved Oct 12, 2021, fromhttps://akjournals.com/view/
journals/096/aop/article-10.1556-096.2021.00017/article-
10.1556-096.2021.00017.xml
BOURYAK O., Antonenko N., Lavrentiev I. (2017). Leonid Tyulpa
– the Architect of the Period of Mass Industrial Development,
ZARCH Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Architecture and
Urbanism. Is. 8, pp 154–169.
BOURYAK O.,Vihdorovich O., Gayevyi Yu., Golovchenko A.
(2020). Innovative Approaches in the Period of Mass Industrial
Development (on the Example of Residential Areas of Kharkiv).
// IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
Innovative Technology in Architecture and Design (ITAD
2020).907:012013. P.1–11.
GLENDINNING M. (2021). Mass Housing: Modern Architecture
and State Power - A Global History. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
ISBN:1474229271 ISBN13:9781474229272
GRIGORENKO A., Tyulpa L. (1958). Planіrovka near Pavlovo field
in Kharkiv. In: Stroitel’stvo i arkhitektura, No. 8, p. 9-12.
ENGEL B. (ed). (2019). Mass Housing in the Socialist City.
Heritage, Values, and Perspectives. Case Studies in
Germany, Russia, and Ukraine. DOM Publishers. ISBN
978-3-86922-507-4
KIREEVA N., Koltsov Yu., Matorin A. (1962). New housing estate
of Kharkiv. In: Stroitel’stvo i arkhitektura, No. 9. Pp. 14-15.
LAVRIK G., Demin N. (1975). Methodological Fundamentals of
Areal Planning. Moscow: Stroyizdat. P. 98.
LIUTAURAS N.(2020). Soviet Era Architecture and the Meaning
It Holds for the People of Lithuania, Place Meaning and
Attachment. In: Authenticity, Heritage and Preservation. New
York: Routlege, 2020, p. 28–40.
MATORIN, A. (1964). Housing estate Selection station. In:
Stroitel’stvo i arkhitektura. Vol 3. Pp. 8-9.
MOISER F. and Zadorin D. (2018). Speaking of Soviet Typologies
of Standardized Buildings. Industrial Multifamily Housing in
USSR from 1955 to 1991. Berlin: DOM publishers.
MYSAK N. (2018). Formation of identity of areas of mass housing
construction of the 1960s – 1980s. Thesis. Ph.D. Lviv.
NOVIKOV (Ed.) (1990). Planning and development of populated
areas (experience of Giprograd). Giprograd, Kyiv.
PLESHKANOVS’KA A. (2005). Functional and Planning
Optimization of the Urban Areas Usage. Kiev: Institute of Urban
Studie.
SHIROCHIN S., Mykhaylyk. O. (2020). Unknown periphery of
Kiev. Solomyanskiy district. Skyhorse, Kyiv.
SHKODOVSKY Yu., Lavrentiev I., Leibfreyd A., Polyakova Yu.
(2002). Kharkiv Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. Kharkiv: Folio.
SHPARA P. (1988). Notes of an architect. Kiev.
STETSIUK, I. (2016). Socio-Cultural Principles of Harmonious
Transformation of the Urban Environment. PhD
Thesis, Kyiv.
TYULPA L. (1963) New Microdistricts in Kharkiv. In: Stroitel’stvo i
arkhitektura. No. 10.
TYULPA L. (1964) Saltivka District Planning. . In: Stroitel’stvo i
arkhitektura. Vol 3.
URBAN F.(2018). Large Housing Estates of Berlin, Germany:
Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges In: Housing
Estates in Europe. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-92813-5_5
YATSENKO V. (2016). Prerequisites and the beginning of the
emergence of regional planning in Ukraine. In: Suchasni
problemy arkhitektury ta mistobuduvannya. Vol. 42. Pp.
252-258.
Nadiia Antonenko was born in Kharkiv, and has
been living in Kyiv since 2018. Graduated from the Faculty
of Architecture of the Kharkiv National University of Civil
Engineering and Architecture (2010). Coordinator of the
project of DOCOMOMO Virtual Exhibition in Ukraine
(2015), co-organizer of DOCOMOMO Ukraine international
conferences (2016, 2017, 2018). Activist of the NGO Urban
Reforms (2015-2017). Participant of the international research
project “Unloved Heritage, Socialist City?” and “The Future of
Modernist Housing. Living Labs Socialist City “(2017-2022).
Defended the Ph.D. thesis “Monument of modern architecture
in the context of the architectural culture of the second half
of the 20th century” (2019). Senior lecturer of the Chair of
Information Technologies in Architecture of the Kyiv National
University of Construction and Architecture (2020). Author of a
number of international professional scientific publications and
participant of in international conferences.
85
JOURNAL 70
