uk

Article

Typical projects for atypical urban formations: The science city Piatykhatky

Kateryna Didenko Olga Vigdorovich
Abstract

Science cities, as specialised scientific production complexes, were a unique phenomenon of Soviet urban planning, formed in the 1950s-1980s. These settlements were planned to provide optimal conditions for the work of scientific institutions and comfortable living for their employees. One of the vivid examples of such formation was the science town Piatykhatky in Kharkiv, created to maintain the functioning of the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology. The aim of this article was to examine the architectural and urban planning evolution of the Piatykhatky science city in Kharkiv, identifying stage-based development and analysing unique and standardised features at both urban and building scales. The results of the study demonstrated that the Piatykhatky area exhibited the key characteristics of a classic science city: a satellite location, a closed structure, individual master planning, a high level of landscaping, and a balanced combination of residential, industrial, and recreational infrastructure. These features emphasised the scientific and state priorities underlying its design. However, the architectural component of the area reflected the characteristic features of mass construction of the era, expressed in the use of standard projects for residential and public buildings. This combination of unique urban status and typical buildings formed contrast, demonstrating a pragmatic approach to architectural solutions in the context of limited resources. Of particular interest was the study of the functional and spatial complex of Piatykhatky, encompassing social, educational, sports, and transport elements, as well as its potential as a cultural heritage site. This research highlighted the necessity of modernising outdated infrastructure, while preserving valuable spatial and compositional solutions that continue to serve elements of the urban environment

Keywords

research-oriented settlement; mono-industrial town; post-Soviet built legacy; unique urban structure; standard design

Download article

Received 31.07.2025, Revised 03.11.2025, Accepted 19.12.2025

Retrieved from Vol. 11, No. 4, 2025

Suggested citation

Didenko, K., & Vigdorovich, O. (2025). Typical projects for atypical urban formations: The science city Piatykhatky. Architectural Studies, 11(4), 64-75. https://doi.org/10.56318/as/4.2025.64

https://doi.org/10.56318/as/4.2025.64

Pages 64-75

References

  1. Аntypenko, H., Antonenko, N., & Didenko, K. (2021). Urban transformations of Kharkiv’s large housing estates. Novi Budynky and Pavlovo Pole after 1991. Építés – Építészettudomány, 50(1-2), 45-63. doi: 10.1556/096.2021.00017.
  2. Antypenko, H., & Benkő, M. (2022). Architectural and urban transformations of large housing estate related to functional diversification: Case of Kelenföld in Budapest. Journal of Architecture & Urbanism, 46(2), 160-170. doi: 10.3846/jau.2022.17462.
  3. Archive of NSC KIPT. (1963). Development projects of Pjatykhatky settlement (1st stage of construction). Central State Scientific and Technical Archives of Ukraine. Retrieved from https://cdnta.archives.gov.ua/.
  4. Archive of NSC KIPT. (1987). Development projects of Pjatykhatky settlement (2nd stage of construction). Central State Scientific and Technical Archives of Ukraine. Retrieved from https://cdnta.archives.gov.ua/.
  5. Ashykhmin, V., & Stepina, V. (2008). Establishment of the scientific and production base of the Institute of Solid State Physics Materials Science and Technologies. Energy and Electrification, 12, 51-63.
  6. Berger, S. (Ed.). (2019). Constructing industrial pasts: Heritage, historical culture and identity in regions undergoing structural economic transformation. New York: Berghahn Books.
  7. Buryak, O., & Vigdorovich, O. (2023). Configuration of urban planning spaces as a subject of protection. Innovative approaches to monuments protection works on the mass industrial development of Kharkiv of the 1960s-1980s. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2490(1), article number 030014. doi: 10.1063/5.0123084.
  8. Communist Party of the Soviet Union. (1956). 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. 14-25 of February, 1956. Verbatim Report. Volumes 1-2. M.: State Political Publishing House.
  9. Dijokienė, D., & Paškauskienė, A. (2022). Identity of historical areas of a city: Interaction between nature and man. Scientific Journal of Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies Landscape Architecture and Art, 20(20), 7-17. doi: 10.22616/j.landarchart.2022.20.01.
  10. Dotsiak, T. (2023). Kharkiv’s Piatykhatky are recovering from the unfortunate shelling. Fakty ICTV. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFYzzLo1JEY.
  11. Drėmaitė, M. (2022). Co-operative housing in Lithuania as a field of architectural experimentation (1960s-1980s). ABE Journal, 20. doi: 10.4000/abe.13188.
  12. Drėmaitė, M. (2023). The role of architects in fighting the monotony of the Lithuanian mass housing estates. In Urban planning during socialism (pp. 134-150). London: Routledge.
  13. Grinevich, E., Gaevoy, Y., Vyatkin, V., & Karzhinerova, T. (2021). The problems of reconstruction of residential buildings built in the 60s and 70s of the XX century in the city of Kharkiv. Scientific Bulletin of Construction, 104(2), 140-146. doi: 10.29295/2311-7257-2021-104-2-140-147.
  14. Hajduková, R., & Sopirová, A. (2022). Perspectives of post-industrial towns and landscape in Eastern Slovakia – case study Strážske. Land, 11(7), article number 1114. doi: 10.3390/land11071114.
  15. Harlov‑Csortán, M., & Tamáska, M. (2025). Dunaújváros and Paks: Socialist science and technology cities of Hungary? Studia Historiae Scientiarum, 24, 75-103. doi: 10.4467/2543702XSHS.25.004.21842.
  16. Jaczewska, J., Tarkowski, M., Puzdrakiewicz, K., & Połom, M. (2022). Urban densification and sustainable mobility in a post-socialist city. Reconstruction of the science and business district development in Gdańsk. Cities, 127, article number 103739. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103739.
  17. Kachemtseva, L., Khoroian, N., Didenko, K., & Antonenko, N. (2022). Urban planning features of naukogrady (science cities) – centers of innovative activity: The case of Pyatihatky. Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment, 15(1), 19-28. doi: 10.21307/acee-2022-002.
  18. Kissfazekas, K., & Benkő, M. (2022). Dunaújváros. Transforming and re-branding the largest new town of Hungary’s state-socialist era. In Post-utopian spaces. London: Routledge.
  19. Kulić, V., Parker, T., Penick, M., & Steiner, F. (Eds.). (2014). Sanctioning modernism: Architecture and the making of postwar identities. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  20. Liubimau, S. (2019). Post-Soviet ‘nuclear’ towns as multi-scalar infrastructures. Relating sovereignty and urbanity through the perspective of Visaginas. In T. Tuvikene, W. Sgibnev & C.S. Neugebauer (Eds.), Post-socialist urban infrastructures (pp. 90-104). London: Routledge.
  21. Mažeikienė, N., & Gerulaitienė, E. (2022). Negotiating post-nuclear identities through tourism development in the ‘atomic town’ Visaginas. Journal of Baltic Studies, 53(3), 437-457. doi: 10.1080/01629778.2022.2092163.
  22. Mihaylov, V., & Ilchenko, M. (Eds.). (2022). Post utopian spaces: Transforming and re-evaluating urban icons of socialist modernism. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003260769.
  23. Pecherskyі, A. (2023). By shelling Kharkiv’s Piatykhatky, the russians deliberately ignored the danger of radioactive contamination. Army Inform. Retrieved from https://armyinform.com.ua/2023/06/14/obstrilyuyuchy-harkivski-pyatyhatky-rosiyany-svidomo-ignoruvaly-nebezpeku-radioaktyvnogo-zabrudnennya/.
  24. PhotoBuildings. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://photobuildings.com/cities/70/.
  25. Remizova, O., & Bozhko, K. (2025). Processes of ruinisation and revitalisation: Kharkiv industrial architecture in the modernist era. Docomomo Journal, 74, 59-68. doi: 10.52200/docomomo.74.06.
  26. Serhiiuk, I., & Kalakoski, I. (2023). Demolition or adaptation?: Post-industrial buildings in Ukraine. Buildings & Cities, 4(1), 352-368. doi: 10.5334/bc.307.
  27. Shevchenko, L. (2022). Mass housing in Ukraine in the second half of the 20th century. Docomomo Journal, 67, 72-79. doi: 10.52200/docomomo.67.08.
  28. Stanilov, K. (Ed.). (2007). The post‑socialist city. Urban form and transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after socialism. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3.
  29. The Declaration of Helsinki. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/.
  30. Tolok, V. (2004). Physics and Kharkiv. Physical Surface Engineering, 2(4), 229-243.
  31. Wendland, A.V. (2020). Ukrainian memory spaces and nuclear technology: The musealization of Chornobyl’s disaster. Technology and Culture, 61(4), 1162-1177. doi: 10.1353/tech.2020.0116.
ISSN 2411-801X e-ISSN 2786-7374  UDC 71;72
DOI: 10.56318/as