In 1924, pursuant to a resolution of the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee (All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee), “Planning Commissions of the District Executive Committees of the Council of Workers’, Peasants’, and Red Army Deputies” were established to plan and oversee the operations of enterprises and institutions in the administrative districts. You can learn more about this by reviewing three fonds at the State Archives of the Kharkiv Region. There’s just so much there! All kinds of reports, documents, data, and correspondence on the state and development of industry, electrification, transportation, trade, agriculture, forestry, and public utilities, as well as healthcare institutions and much more. A historical and economic description and a physical-geographical characterization of the Kharkiv District, an economic overview of the Akhtyr District…
The Kharkiv collection contains the largest number of records—387 items dating from 1924 to 1930. Among them is a particularly interesting document from 1930 titled “General Guidelines for the Redevelopment and Reconstruction of Kharkiv.” On page 101 of the typewritten text, the authors list the factors contributing to the development and economic growth of our city, cite interesting facts, and, of course, raise the issue of a new urban planning project for Kharkiv. The document begins with the section “General Guidelines,” which discusses the need to build new cities as well as to reconstruct existing ones (a task with which the Soviet authorities struggled due to a lack of experience in this area).
Socialist cities, unlike capitalist cities, are closely linked to industry or agriculture, since they are designed with full consideration of the needs of those sectors. Moreover, socialist cities are designed simultaneously with the industrial base they are intended to serve.
The document states that the contrast between the city and the countryside, as well as between the poor outskirts and the wealthy city center, must be eliminated. Therefore, when creating new districts in Kharkiv, emphasis was placed on “socialist principles of construction,” which were intended to guide the city’s further development as a whole.
After the end of the civil war, our city became the capital of Ukraine, thereby receiving an exceptional boost to its development. Kharkiv’s population grew significantly faster than in other cities.
Among the factors contributing to the city’s growth, the authors cited:
— Kharkiv’s proximity to key energy resources (the Donetsk Coal Basin and steel mills) has led to the concentration of the metalworking and machine-building industries in the city;
— the availability of an experienced workforce and skilled workers;
— the high density of the agricultural population in the Kharkiv region, which provides the necessary workforce and ensures the operation of industrial enterprises;
— Kharkiv’s convenient location on the main transportation route connecting the south of the Soviet Union with its central and northern regions, along which both coal and metal cargo from the Donbas, as well as all food products from Ukraine, the Don, and the Kuban, were transported. Goods from the central and northern parts of the USSR were also transported south along this same main route. Some of these shipments were unloaded in our city, creating ample opportunities for the development of industrial enterprises;
— an important factor in this development was that Kharkiv had become the capital. The city became the center of the country’s administrative and political life;
it also became a major cultural hub with scientific organizations and institutions.
Naturally, all of the factors listed posed a number of challenges, which the new plan was intended to address. The structure of the document itself, “General Guidelines for the Redevelopment and Reconstruction of Kharkiv,” gives a sense of the enormous scale of the work:
— General Information, pp. 1–5
— Industry, pp. 5–12
— Agriculture, pp. 12–14
— Population, pp. 14–28
— Commercial and Warehouse Areas, pp. 28–29
— Administrative and Business Areas, pp. 30–31
— The Kharkiv Railway Junction: Its Current Status and Development Prospects, pp. 31–43
— Cultural and Social Activities, pp. 43–60
— Outdoor Amenities, pp. 60–70
— Basic Physical Conditions of the City of Kharkiv, pp. 70–101
As I mentioned above, the “General Guidelines for the Redevelopment and Reconstruction of Kharkiv, 1930” is a 101-page document, so it’s difficult to cover everything in a single article. So I’ll start with “External Beautification,” since this topic remains relevant to our city to this day. Right at the beginning, the authors sadly note: “The urban landscaping of Kharkiv falls far short of the role and significance that Kharkiv holds as a major metropolitan, industrial, and cultural city.”
According to the 1928 figures, the situation regarding public utilities in our city was not the best. Water supply, sewerage, the length of tram tracks, and the number of paved streets in Kyiv, Odesa, and Dnipro were, in many respects, better than in Kharkiv. And this was precisely the main obstacle to proper urban development. After all, construction work was concentrated primarily in well-developed areas without taking into account the overall interests of the developing city. For example, green spaces—which served as recreational areas for workers and sources of clean air—covered an area of 130 hectares. This figure included:
1. Municipal Park
2. Kvitky Park
3. Yasnopolyansky Park
4. Komsomolska Square
5. University Park
6. Karpovsky Park
7. Krasnozovodsky Park
8. Red Militiaman Square
9. Post Office Park
10. Mikhailovsky Square
11. Square Near the UVO
Headquarters Parks open only to paying visitors:
— Trade union, botanical, zoological, business, and other parks were not included in the count. However, it was estimated that the total area of green spaces—including parks, paid-access gardens, boulevards, flower beds, and public squares—amounted to approximately 300 hectares. And if cemeteries (which were gradually planned to be converted into green spaces) were added to this, the total area reached 450 hectares.
However, the green spaces in Pomerok and Sokolniki were not taken into account, as they were forest resorts of citywide significance located far from residential areas.
In the 1930s, there were about 10 square meters of public green spaces per capita in Kharkiv. That might seem like a pretty good figure, were it not for a few “buts”:
1) Green spaces were scattered haphazardly throughout the city.
2) Some of them were inaccessible (garden areas requiring an admission fee).
3) Some of the parks (at KhTZ, Pavlova Dacha, Grigorovka, etc.) consisted of very young plantings.
4) Kharkiv’s cemeteries, which were included in the total number of green spaces, were not well-maintained and, in the authors’ opinion, could not serve as recreational areas for workers.
Taking the above factors into account, the actual per capita green space in Kharkiv amounted to only 3 square meters. This was clearly insufficient, and it was decided to take the following measures:
1. Organizing new plantings in areas unsuitable for construction (riverbanks, ravine slopes, etc.)
2. Creating green spaces within courtyards.
According to rough estimates, these measures could have increased the area by 2,000 hectares.
The next step was to improve and organize the cemeteries, transforming them into green spaces. The new crematorium was intended to reorganize the entire funeral system.
Attention was also given to the issue of free daytime access to commercial cemeteries, as well as to the improvement and organization of other public green spaces. At the same time, it was strictly prohibited to use for development plots designated for green spaces or those already occupied by them. And, of course, it was decided to actively develop what is currently being actively destroyed—namely, the network of street plantings. The topic of long-term recreation for workers in the bosom of nature, yet in close proximity to the city, deserves special attention. To this end, there were plans to create a “Green City” in the area between Bezliudivka, the settlement of Vysokyi, and the village of Pylypivka.
The plan was to build vacation homes, health resorts, hotels, a large tent camp, as well as a network of cafeterias and restaurants supplied by a central kitchen. To provide cultural entertainment for vacationers throughout the “Green City” area, it was decided to create a network of theaters, movie theaters, and clubs, as well as to build sports fields, playgrounds for adults and children, and even swimming pools.
To ensure convenient transportation links between “Green City” and Kharkiv, there were plans to build a network of roads—both conventional and modernized, including an electric road. In addition, a second “Green City” was planned for the Vasyshcheve area.
The part of Pomirky-Sokilʹnyky that was not occupied by the Forest Park was set aside exclusively for the construction of sanatoriums, vacation homes, and health resorts, creating a special sanatorium and health resort district of Kharkiv in Pomirky.
So, as we can see, the views of the authorities and officials on Kharkiv’s development in the area of landscaping—both then and now—differ radically. What a pity…
- About the military pilot school and the airfield in Kharkiv… - 04.11.2020
- Kharkiv Artisans and the 1887 Exhibition - 17.08.2020
- Nikanor Savich—A Political Career by Mistake - 13.07.2020