uk

Article

Implementing a human-centered block-based urban planning method in the Ukrainian context: The case of Kharkiv

Karsten Pålsson Liudmyla Shvets* Iryna Dreval

Liudmyla.Shvets@kname.edu.ua

Abstract

The relevance of this study is determined by the need to adapt human-centered, block-based urban planning approaches to the Ukrainian urban planning context shaped by post-Soviet spatial development patterns and the challenges of post-war urban recovery. The aim of the article was to identify the specific features of implementing K. Pålsson’s human-centred block-based urban planning method within Ukrainian architectural and urban planning practice. The research combined a theoretical analysis of the method’s origins and components in the European urban tradition with an experimental workshop-based test conducted on a post-industrial site in Kharkiv. The results demonstrated the overall applicability of the method to the Ukrainian context. The most successfully reproduced principles included the urban block structure, continuous street frontage, human scale, and the integration of green structure, while the balance between private and public space was generally understood but implemented with varying degrees of consistency. Mixed-use development and the organisation of streets and squares were implemented partially. The most challenging principles were spatial sequences, the hierarchy of public spaces, and the reduction of the role of freestanding buildings. The study indicated that the method requires not direct transfer, but staged adaptation to local professional traditions, regulatory conditions, and the socio-spatial context. The findings also showed that the workshop functioned not only as an educational format, but as an empirical test of the method’s operationality in the Ukrainian context. The practical value of the study lies in the potential application of its results in educational workshops, territorial redevelopment projects, and the development of method guidelines for Ukrainian communities

Keywords

urban morphology; urban blocks; participatory planning; workshop-based experiment; post-Soviet urban context

Download article

Received 30.12.2025, Revised 27.03.2026, Accepted 02.06.2026 Published 22.06.2026

Retrieved from Vol. 12, No. 2, 2026

Suggested citation

Pålsson, K., Shvets, L., & Dreval , I. (2026). Implementing a human-centered block-based urban planning method in the Ukrainian context: The case of Kharkiv. Architectural Studies, 12(2), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.56318/as/2.2026.05

https://doi.org/10.56318/as/2.2026.05

Pages 72-83

References

  1. Akbulut Basar, A. (2024). Participatory urban planning for social sustainability: A combination of the analytic hierarchy process, with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats analysis, and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (A’WOT-TOPSIS). Sustainability, 16(24), article number 10862. doi: 10.3390/su162410862.
  2. Allam, Z., Khavarian Garmsir, A.R., Lassaube, U., Chabaud, D., & Moreno, C. (2024). Mapping the implementation practices of the 15 Minute City. Smart Cities, 7(4), 2094-2109. doi: 10.3390/smartcities7040083.
  3. Apatenko, T.M., & Bezliubchenko, O.S. (2024). Priorities and disadvantages of city block development. Municipal Economy of Cities, 1(182), 35-42. doi: 10.33042/2522-1809-2024-1-182-35-42.
  4. Avila-Palencia, I., & Lutzu, J. (2024). The Superblock Programme in Barcelona (UCCRN case study Docking Station). New York: Columbia University Academic Commons. doi: 10.7916/shtg-jg82.
  5. Bruno, M., Melo, H.P.M., Campanelli, B., & Loreto, V. (2024). A universal framework for inclusive 15 minute cities. Nature Cities, 1(10), 633-641. doi: 10.1038/s44284-024-00119-4.
  6. Crosas, C., Gómez-Escoda, E., & Villavieja, E. (2024). Interplay between land use planning and functional mix dimensions: An assemblage approach for metropolitan Barcelona. Sustainability, 16(17), article number 7734. doi: 10.3390/su16177734.
  7. DBN B.2.2-12:2019 “Planning and development of territories. State building norms of Ukraine”. (2019, April). Retrieved from https://e-construction.gov.ua/laws_detail/3260441209981634046.
  8. Dreval, I. (2022). On the question of the development of concepts for the revival of the cities of Ukraine in the post-war period. Urban Development and Spatial Planning, 81, 133-142. doi: 10.32347/2076-815x.2022.81.133-142.
  9. Gregorowicz-Kipszak, J., Bröchner, J., & Hagson, A. (2024). Plans and outcomes for mixed use in new apartment buildings: A Gothenburg programme for suburban infills. Urban Design International. doi: 10.1057/s41289-024-00258-z.
  10. Idak, Y. V. (2006). Compositional aspects of the formation of the quarter development of Lviv in the late 18th – early 20th centuries. (PhD dissertation, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine).
  11. Kryzhantovska, O.A., Rumilets, T.S., & Morozova, T.T. (2020). Historical background of high-density low-rise residential development. Regional Problems of Architecture and Urban Planning, 14, 136-142. doi: 10.31650/2707-403X-2020-14-136-142.
  12. Lipianin, V.A., & Milash, T. O. (2018). Principles of planning residential development in modern urban conditions (on the example of the “Pivnichnyi” microdistrict in Rivne). Scientific Journal of the University of Dslivskoho, 14.
  13. Ng, P., Zhu, S., Li, Y., & van Ameijde, J. (2024). Digitally gamified co-creation: Enhancing community engagement in urban design through a participant-centric framework. Design Science, 10, article number e17. doi: 10.1017/dsj.2024.17.
  14. Nieuwenhuijsen, M., et al. (2024). The superblock model: A review of an innovative urban model for sustainability, liveability, health and well-being. Environmental Research, 251(1), article number 118550. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.118550.
  15. Pålsson, K. (2023). Urban block cities: 10 design principles for contemporary planning. Berlin: DOM publishers. Retrieved from https://dom-publishers.com/products/urban-block-cities.
  16. Pålsson, K. (2025). City design: A manual of 10 design principles. Refshaleøen masterplan. Retrieved from http://www.palssonurbanism.com/books-videos-lectures.
  17. Pearson, J., Evans, G., Wickes, R., Dodd, M., Kalms, N., & Madabhushi, N. (2025). A systematic review on co-design, place-making and social capital. CoDesign. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2025.2553240.
  18. Pérez, K., et al. (2025). Environmental and health effects of the Barcelona superblocks. BMC Public Health, 25, article number 634. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-21835-z.
  19. Popovych, D. (2023). The method of reconstruction of the interior quarterly space in the formation of a modern housing in the conditions of a historical building. Current Problems of Architecture and Urban Planning, 67, 351-359. doi: 10.32347/2077-3455.2023.67.351-359.
  20. Ripp, M., Gustafsson, C., Jones, Z., Majumdar, S., & Ginzarly, M. (2025). Historic urban landscapes and heritage systems as the basis for sustainable urban development. Land, 14(9), article number 1783. doi: 10.3390/land14091783.
  21. Rojas-Rueda, D., Norberciak, M., & Morales-Zamora, E. (2024). Advancing health equity through 15-min cities and chrono-urbanism. Journal of Urban Health, 101(3), 483-496. doi: 10.1007/s11524-024-00850-2.
  22. Shvets, L. (2025). Resilience and housing policy: An urban case study of Kharkiv. Current Problems of Architecture and Urban Planning, 73, 389-405. doi: 10.32347/2077-3455.2025.73.389-405.
  23. Slingerland, G., & Hansen, N.B. (2025). Untangling the participation buzz in urban place-making: Mechanisms and effects. CoDesign. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2025.2514561.
  24. Tănase, I.A., & Povian, C.M. (2025). Accessibility challenges in the 15-minute city concept for people with disabilities in Timișoara, România. Sustainability, 17(19), article number 8727. doi: 10.3390/su17198727.
  25. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
  26. Wacnik, P., Daly, S.R., & Verma, A. (2025). Participatory design: A systematic review and insights for future practice. Design Science, 11, article number e21. doi: 10.1017/dsj.2025.10009.
  27. Wandl, A., & Hausleitner, B. (2021). Investigating functional mix in Europe’s dispersed urban areas. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(9), 2862-2879.
  28. Wang, K., & Fouseki, K. (2025). Sustaining the fabric of time: Urban heritage, time rupture, and sustainable development. Land, 14(1), article number 193. doi: 10.3390/land14010193.
ISSN 2411-801X e-ISSN 2786-7374  UDC 71;72
DOI: 10.56318/as