February–March 2018 brought to light many issues related to the improvement of our city. However, I want to point out that this situation is not new.
When reading materials on the city’s history from the 18th and 19th centuries, one gets the impression that this is simply an ancient Kharkiv tradition and that it has always been this way. Back in 1887, at a time when there were still no zoos or shops, the literary supplement to the *Kharkiv Calendar* published an extremely interesting essay titled “A Page from the History of Urban Development in Kharkiv (1760–1765).”
In the introduction, the authors wrote the following:
The city of Kharkiv does not yet have its own history—neither a general one nor a specific one—and the few published materials and isolated notes do not deserve to be called a history. Therefore, one cannot help but view with sympathy the initiative of the local city council, which, without waiting for a history to emerge, decided two years ago to establish a cash prize for the best essay on the history of municipal self-government. But we fear that even this approach will not bring the city the desired result. The City Council undervalues scholarly work, believing that a prize of 500 rubles is sufficient compensation for the many months of diligent and painstaking archival work, which also requires specialized theoretical and historical-legal training.
As we can see, more than 100 years later, the situation has not changed at all. There is still no comprehensive history of Kharkiv, and the “city council” continues to undervalue scholarly work. The compilers of this literary supplement, having no hope of seeing a complete history of our city in the near future, turned their attention to an extremely interesting document from the 1760s and published it.
They justified this by noting that this was a transitional and critical period for Kharkiv. On the one hand, it was precisely during this period that the first systematic attempts at urban improvement took place; on the other hand, Kharkiv was losing its former military significance and acquiring a new one—as a commercial and administrative center.
It was precisely at that time that old Cossack customs began to blend with the establishment of central authority. Responsibility for the city’s development during that period rested with the city governor and the city ataman, who reported to the regimental office. The regimental chancellery itself, together with the regimental officers, was directly subordinate to the commander of the Sloboda regiments and, subsequently, to the commander of the Ukrainian division. The latter, in fact, was the chief administrator of the region. From 1758 to 1762, Lieutenant General Pyotr Ivanovich Streshnev held this position. By virtue of his office, he had to move to and live in the city that we all love.
Apparently, Kharkiv made a rather unpleasant impression on him. Perhaps that is precisely why Streshnev was responsible for one of the first initiatives regarding the city’s improvement, which he outlined in his lengthy order submitted to the Kharkiv regimental office on March 30, 1760. This important document was published in its entirety in 1887. Right at the beginning, Streshnev writes about what he had observed:
The streets, alleys, markets, and shopping arcades are extremely filthy, and the areas intended for passage are excessively littered; moreover, dead dogs, cats, and other carrion lie scattered in front of courtyards and in public squares; Consequently, during the current spring season—and even more so during the hot summer months—this is not only harmful to the air but also gives rise to fears of severe illnesses among the people, as well as the risk of fires…
Petr Ivanovich goes on to draw significant attention to the lack of fire safety measures in our city, noting with regret: “There are no regulations regarding assistance in extinguishing fires.” Therefore, the commander of the Ukrainian Division ordered the Kharkiv regimental office:
1) Police departments should appoint a respectable and trustworthy person to ensure “that the streets, alleys, market rows, marketplaces, squares, and courtyards are kept clean, and that there are absolutely no dead dogs or other carcasses lying about, but that such waste be disposed of in appropriate locations outside the city, and that manure be hauled away rather than left in front of gates or in other places between dwellings.” Owners in whose courtyards or in the vicinity of whom such filth was found were to be fined.
2) To combat fires, Streshnev proposed a number of effective measures. For example, keeping barrels of water in courtyards and having the necessary tools (buckets, axes) on hand. Fines were also imposed for failing to extinguish fires in a timely manner. This is hardly surprising, since there was no fire department in our city at that time. After receiving an order from Streshnev, the regimental office forwarded it to the centurions for execution. And that’s when things got really interesting. The Kharkiv centurions—to put it bluntly in modern terms—“called in sick.” They then began to claim that their immediate duties prevented them from participating in the city’s improvement efforts. Eventually, the regimental office grew tired of the endless excuses and relieved the centurions of their duties regarding city improvement.
Meanwhile, Pyotr Ivanovich kept sending new orders and confirmations to the regimental office. An attempt to entrust the implementation of Streshnev’s orders to the city governor, Fyodor Panteleymonov, was also unsuccessful. The city governor of Kharkiv, who was overseeing the condition of the city’s fortifications, found it very difficult to understand exactly what order should prevail on the city streets. Convinced that nothing good could be expected from the centurions or the city governor, the leadership decided to create a special body whose responsibilities would include the improvement of Kharkiv. But a staffing issue immediately arose. Representatives of the regimental non-commissioned officers once again began to engage in sabotage as a group. Retired centurion Afanasyev managed to come up with a host of arguments to justify his refusal. Regimental Ensign Kvitka suddenly turned out to be “sick.” Only Second Ensign Kostich raised no objections to his appointment to the office responsible for the city’s improvement.
But the residents of Kharkiv—without whose cooperation it would have been extremely difficult to manage—were not particularly eager to improve the city either. Through the centurions and other officials, the new rules regarding order and cleanliness on the streets—as well as the fines for failing to comply with orders—were explained to them. This did not change anything. After that, group leaders, fifty-man leaders, and centurions were selected from among the residents of Kharkiv. They were specifically tasked with monitoring the cleanliness of the streets and being responsible for firefighting. However, they still did not really fulfill their duties. And while the cleanup of the city’s waste—albeit with great difficulty—was making some progress, not a single one of those selected showed up to fight a fire.
In 1763, Panteleymonov, the city magistrate we have already met, retired. Belozorov, who took his place, received detailed instructions from the regimental office regarding his duties related to the improvement of Kharkiv. Of the eight points, five were devoted to fire safety measures. In summary, City Magistrate Belozorov was required to ensure cleanliness and carry out fire and police supervision. However, the funds available to the Kharkiv city magistrate for firefighting remained extremely meager. The city fire department itself was still in its infancy (its subsequent history is quite interesting).
The issue of improving sanitary conditions remained just as relevant in our city in the mid-19th century as it had been before.
The issue of “protection from thieves,” however, was not at all part of the agenda for Kharkiv’s urban development at that time. In most cases, residents defended themselves against criminals as best they could. However, for a growing and developing city that was attracting a large number of merchants, this was clearly insufficient. To combat banditry, the city authorities at that time took preventive measures. For example, they detained anyone walking in the dark without a lantern or who was drunk, and they did not allow soldiers to go out on the streets after sunset.
Of course, in the absence of law enforcement agencies in 1763–64, the residents of Kharkiv often complained of nighttime robberies and thefts. At that time, the role of the police was effectively carried out by military units stationed in our city. In 1764, soldiers of the Borisoglebsky Dragoon Regiment ensured the safety of the city’s residents.
On January 18, 1765, the Sloboda-Ukrainian Governorate was established by decree of Catherine II.
A manifesto dated July 26, 1765, abolished the military administration of the Sloboda regiments. Of course, all these changes also affected city governance. The abolition of Cossack autonomy was presented as a blessing and a civilizational breakthrough.
In the same year, 1887, Issue No. 42 of the architectural journal *Zodchiy* published an article dedicated to the urban improvement of our city. Thanks to it, we can learn about the actual living conditions at that time—which, interestingly, did not differ greatly from those described in “A Page from the History of the Urban Development of Kharkiv (1760–1765).”
Surprising as it may seem, the author begins his article with the words:
Construction activity in the city of Kharkiv and its urban beautification show all the signs that the city is undergoing a period of transition, during which—as the city’s population and financial resources grow— the population is no longer content with mere protection from the forces of nature and is beginning to pay attention to ensuring that dwellings also have a presentable exterior and are furnished with a certain level of comfort.
I do not know how many such “transitional periods” there have been in Kharkiv’s history. However, my heart tells me that even 100 years from now, some researcher studying our city’s past will write something similar about our time. This is followed by a very detailed description of the city’s architectural charm and a number of its buildings. However, when discussing the urban improvement of Kharkiv, the author sadly notes that there is still a great deal to be done in this regard. Particular attention is paid to two issues that remain relevant to this day: street improvements, water supply, and landscaping.
The streets and squares are lit by gas and have sidewalks and paved surfaces, albeit in poor condition. For the most part, the streets are paved only in the middle, covering one-third of their width, so that between the paved strip and the sidewalks there is bare ground; as a result, in the summer there is unimaginable dust in the city—something difficult to conceive for anyone who has not seen it with their own eyes…
In those days, our city was constantly short of water, because the city’s streams would dry up in the summer and turn into puddles. In discussing the problems related to the water supply system, the author of the essay notes that the residents of our city “can’t wait” for it to be installed.
I’d like to go into a little more detail about landscaping. It turns out that over 100 years ago, people viewed this issue quite differently, and they’d probably be absolutely shocked to learn what’s happening today.
With the installation of a water supply system, the city will likely see more green spaces; the lack of funds for watering plantings is one of the main reasons why Kharkiv is so lacking in this regard. Meanwhile, the creation of public parks would be far from superfluous in a city with a population of 100,000, which already enjoys various amenities such as theaters (there are two: an opera house and a drama theater), clubs, and the like—yet has nowhere to escape the stifling heat and unbearable dust on sweltering summer days. The city stretches across a fairly extensive hilly area and offers a very picturesque view from certain elevated vantage points; the only thing missing for complete beauty is gardens…
Of course, these two essays provide only a very superficial understanding of the issues related to the history of urban development in our beloved city. However, some of these issues remain relevant to this day. Comprehensive and extremely interesting information on sanitation, the water supply system, bridges, and other municipal issues can be found in the City Council documents held at the Kharkiv Regional Archives.
So there will definitely be a sequel—the best part is just getting started! After all, our city’s past still holds many mysteries and amazing stories.
