What was once a blueprint for a «ideal» socialist society has today become a challenge for human-centered urban design. Soviet urban planning wasn't merely technical; it was fundamentally ideological.
Marxist-Leninist principles were translated, often crudely, into spatial forms, where collectivism takes over individualism, state ownership of land prevails, and atheism's spatial signature was placed.
Cities were designed to reflect the socialist vision of society: collective, orderly, and centrally controlled. Industrial zones were prioritized and strategically placed to drive economic output.
Housing was standardized and mass-produced to accommodate rapid urbanization. Cities were often strictly divided into zones for specific functions: residential, industrial, administrative, and recreational. While intended for efficiency, this often led to long commutes and monofunctional, deserted areas outside of working hours.
This caused pendulum migration with little regard for personal wellbeing. For example, Zaporizhzhia's Social City ('Sotsmisto'), built alongside the DniproHES hydroelectric dam (a symbol of Soviet industrial might), was lined with imposing administrative buildings and residential blocks in the same heavy, classical-inspired style.
The entire district was conceived as an integrated unit serving the dam and nearby industries, linking monumental architecture directly to industrial function.
Facing an acute housing crisis, Nikita Khrushchev (first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1953-1964)) focused on mass-produced, functional housing.
Early efforts resulted in 5-story Khrushchyovkas – basic, low-ceilinged apartments built rapidly. Later, technology evolved towards larger, 9 to 16-story (or more) prefabricated concrete panel buildings (panelki). These were assembled on-site in Lego-like way.
This sped up construction dramatically but often compromised quality: poor seals between panels led to heat loss ('cold bridges') and inadequate soundproofing became an issue.
Kharkiv's Saltivka.
Saltivka’s rows of standardized panelki (primarily 9 and 16 stories) were planned around the mikrorayon principle – self-sufficient neighbourhoods.
However, the reality often lagged: shops, schools, and transport links sometimes developed slower than housing, leading to dormitory suburbs. While providing homes to lots of people and under intense Russian shelling since 2022 Saltivka remains vulnerable to these dense residential areas.
Kyiv's Left Bank (Troyeshchyna, Voskresenka).
These vast estates were rapidly developed from the 1970s-80s. Connected to the city center by bridges, initially they offered modern amenities.
However, they quickly faced challenges: transport bottlenecks across the Dnipro River became a problem, social infrastructure struggled to keep pace, and a lack of diverse public spaces or economic opportunities contributed to a sometimes negative social reputation, despite housing a huge segment of Kyiv's population.
Many Ukrainian cities were designed to serve industrial complexes. Here are several examples:
Mariupol.
The city's layout was dominated by Azovstal and Illich Iron and Steel Works. Residential districts were built adjacent to these plants for the workforce, embodying strict functional zoning.
This created convenience for workers but exposed residents to significant industrial pollution (the “red dust” was a common thing). Its destruction by Russian forces in 2022, culminating in the heroic last stand at Azovstal, underscored how deeply intertwined the city's identity and strategic value were with its Soviet-era industrial planning.
Kryvyi Rih.
Stretching along iron ore deposits, Kryvyi Rih is an example of a city physically shaped by its resource extraction industry. Mines, processing plants, and residential areas are arranged linearly.
This extreme functional specialization has led to significant environmental consequences, including land subsidence and vast spoil tips (terrikony) dominating the landscape.
Donbas.
Cities like Donetsk, Luhansk, Makiivka formed a dense network heavily reliant on coal mining and heavy industry.
Planning often involved distinct settlements for miners near specific shafts, clear zoning, but also significant environmental degradation and, eventually, economic vulnerability as heavy industry declined or became outdated.
Soviet urban planning provided Ukraine with a functional skeleton. However, it did so with force, prioritizing ideology and industrial targets over wellbeing and historical continuity.
From the grand, power-projecting avenues of the Stalinist era like Zaporizhzhia's Sotsmisto, to the standardized, mass-produced panelka landscapes of Kharkiv's Saltivka, and the functionally zoned industrial cities like Mariupol and Kryvyi Rih, the physical environment carries mark of the past.
Ukraine is rethinking this legacy. Many industrial spaces are being transformed into artistic venues (like Izolyatsia - the territory of a former insulation materials factory, and before the Russian invasion, the art space was operating there, now is Russian torture chamber in Donetsk, established after the occupation of the city in 2014).
There's an effort to integrate this architecture and make it part of modern Ukrainian identity (e.g., the resilience of Azovstal, the concept of 'Kharkiv Zalizobeton,' etc.).
There is now an understanding that while Soviet industrialization involved millions of victims and mass killings, the deindustrialization of the 1990s-2000s was a mistake that left Ukraine vulnerable to Russian aggression.
Consequently, Ukraine is currently undergoing reindustrialization (starting with the military-industrial complex, which may later extend to other sectors).
This publication was compiled with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation. It’s content is the exclusive responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the International Renaissance Foundation.
