Industrial Palace GOSPROM (Ukraine)

I. IDENTIFICATION
  • Investor (key institution): Town of Kharkiv
  • Contact person: Chief architect of Kharkiv
  • Year of implementation: 2003-2010
  • Implementation venue

  • Region: Kharkiv
  • Town: Kharkiv
  • Size of area: 10760 m2
  • Impact: regional

    Total costs: EUR

    Source per every institution

    II. TYPOLOGY
    1. Improved provision of local cultural and social events.
    2. Improved condition & quality of the public space between the blocks of flats.
    3. Improved support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats.
    4. Improved attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings.
    III. DESCRIPTION
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. The Industrial Palce in Kharkiv was bulit in 1930s as a materialization of historical progress at the time of socialism building. The design of the palace was a combination of constructivist and futuristic style of socialist architecture. The final product of this style was a huge symmetrical complex, which was honored as one of the greatest triumphs of socialist architecture in Ukraine. At that time, in 1930s, it was the second largest and the second highest / 63 m / building in the entire Europe and was considered the flagship of Soviet futuristic constructivism. The GOSPROM building is the first high-risebuilding built of reinforced concrete frame construction.

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. The Industrial Palce in Kharkiv was bulit in 1930s as a materialization of historical progress at the time of socialism building. The design of the palace was a combination of constructivist and futuristic style of socialist architecture. Originally it was built to serve the administrative purposes. This valuable legacy from the socialist era is identified even after the reconstruction. At present, however, i tis enriched with multiple functions and among the other functions, it also serves as a block of flats for citizens of Kharkiv.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. In the project, there was a principle of innovativeness applied – the building has been renovated – the external facade. Interior was reconstructed too, besides the administrative purpose, it now also serves for providing of other services – business operation, hotel services… There are cultural, educational, shopping centers. These new functions meet other criteria – criterion of portability, effectivity and sustainable development

    7. Was the building or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making process about its rehabilitation or conversion?
    8. The project is important for the local community in several aspects. In renovated premises, attractive and modern services are being provided. Appreciable is also the aspect of historical awareness and national pride of the building, which was a source of pride for the city and state in the past. Reconstructed multifunctional building is a source of pride even today the local community, but also for the people of Ukraine.

    9. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    10. The architecture of historical Kharkiv is inextricably linked with its modern office buildings, cultural, educational and shopping centers, forming a unique town complex.

    11. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns achieved reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    12. The reconstructed building of GOSPROM is an integral part of the city, which is architecturally designed so that there are no differences between the neighbourhoods.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. The construction of the entire building took 3 years. The reconstruction of the Industrial Palace took 7 years.

    IV. SUPPLEMENT

    There are more than 6 000 people living in Dědina block of flats. The whole revitalization 3 -phases -process took 4 years and the total cost of the project was 11 200 000 EUR. It is one of the first completely reconstructed block of flats as far as the public spaces in Prague are concerned.

    Web site: www.c20society.org.uk/botm/archive/2011/gosprom-ukraine.html