Architectural Utopias of the Donbas

.In the 20th century, the Donbas served as a testing ground for urban planning experiments in the USSR. Bolshevik utopias extended beyond economics or politics; they directly shaped the physical environment in which people were to live. Architecture and urban planning were viewed as tools for the reconstruction of society. With its rapid industrialization, vast undeveloped tracts of land, and a constant influx of workers, the Donbas appeared to be the ideal setting for such experiments. It saw the emergence of "garden cities," "socialist cities" (*sotsmista*), and grand architectural ensembles—projects that often existed only on blueprints, yet vividly demonstrated the scale of the era's ambitions.

Garden Cities: A Utopia for a Green Donbas

The concept of the "garden city" was the first major urban planning vision of the 20th century. It was formulated by the British urbanist Ebenezer Howard in the late 19th century. Howard criticized the massive industrial cities of his time for their filth, poor sanitary conditions, overcrowding, and lack of nature. In their place, he proposed the creation of new settlements characterized by low-density development, abundant greenery, a structured layout, and comfortable living conditions.

In the USSR of the 1920s, these ideas were considered progressive. Their adoption was facilitated by the fact that the state controlled the land and resources, allowing it to implement large-scale urban projects without interference from private landowners. For the cities of the Donbas—situated within the steppe zone—the concept of integrating greenery held particular significance.  Makiivka became one of the primary hubs for such experiments. It was here that architects Volodymyr Pushkarov and Viktor Trotsenko—among the first in Ukraine to do so—applied the "garden city" concept when designing industrial settlements. The first of these was Novo-Chaikyne, located in the western part of the city. Between 1924 and 1926, blocks of two-family houses were constructed there amidst tree-lined streets. Later, the "Shliakh Illicha" (Path of Ilyich) settlement and the "socialist town" (sotsmisto) for the Chaikyne-Skhidna mine were established. In total, the plan envisioned 920 single-story, two-family houses designed to accommodate 8,000 to 9,000 residents, alongside comprehensive infrastructure, including clubs, schools, shops, and clinics. The two-family houses found in these settlements are considered some of the finest examples of workers' housing in the Donbas region. The layout featured an intriguing geometry of residential blocks, which is particularly evident when viewing the site plans.

Even more interesting was the project for the settlement associated with the carbide plant—known as "Pyatyrichka" (The Five-Year Plan)—which Volodymyr Trotsenko designed between 1926 and 1929. It employed a rather rare system of "front" and "service" streets: a "clean" street with main entrances ran along the front of the residential buildings, while a service street for utility and household needs ran along the rear. The housing consisted of standardized designs, though several different models were used. Trotsenko specifically developed some of the two-unit houses with attics for Makiivka, while other types had already been employed in his developments in Dnipro. Garden city concepts were also incorporated into the settlement for the "Novo-Butivka" mine, which was originally laid out in the shape of a three-pointed star. The roads and rows of standardized houses formed a complex geometric composition, clearly demonstrating the high priority architects of that era placed on spatial planning.

Similar principles were applied in Kramatorsk: the Zhovtneve settlement—designed in 1925 by architect Oleksandr Dmytriiev for workers at the machine-building plant—also features low-density development, abundant greenery, and ample space between buildings. Construction began in 1926. Fifteen two-story residential buildings were erected based on standardized designs, with most completed by 1928. These structures stand as some of the few well-preserved examples of Soviet architecture from the 1920s.  They are distinguished by the high quality of the brickwork and construction, while the facades showcase a technique characteristic of that era: the combination of red brick and white silicate brick. This area is valuable not only for its architecture but also for the very principle behind the organization of its living environment—barrier-free, rich in greenery, and low-density.

Another example of a "garden city" is the "Red Settlement" (*Chervone Mistechko*) in Kostiantynivka. It was designed by the Kharkiv-based architect A. M. Ginzburg, with the project developed between 1922 and 1924. The Red Settlement is notable for its unusual geometry: the settlement was laid out in the shape of a five-pointed star inscribed within a circle. Consequently, all the city blocks were triangular. Those forming the star's rays featured acute angles, while the blocks along the outer edge of the circle had one curved side, two acute angles, and one obtuse angle. While this layout resulted in awkward plot shapes—particularly at the corners—architects of that era were far more concerned with the expressiveness of the overall spatial composition than with the practicality of individual plots. A green zone was planned for the center of the settlement, but it was later built over. The project was only partially realized: two triangular blocks were constructed along Burdenko and Hlinka streets, along with three fan-shaped blocks along Levanevskoho, Pavlova, and Bohdan Khmelnytsky streets. The remainder of the planned development was never built, but the original master plan has been preserved in the city’s local history museum.

Socialist Cities and a New Way of Life

In the early 1930s, Soviet urban planning underwent a transformation. While the "garden city" model had sought to integrate industry with nature, the concept of the "socialist city" (*sotsmisto*) was far more ambitious in scale. Architects believed that a properly organized city could shape every aspect of human life. This was a brief and highly specific period when the utopian dreams of architects aligned with the interests of the Soviet authorities.

One of the most prominent examples is the socialist city in Makiivka, designed between 1931 and 1932 by the Dutch architect Mart Stam—a leading figure in European Modernism. The new master plan envisioned the city’s expansion toward the southeast. Residential areas were to be situated 2–3 kilometers away from industrial facilities—a distance deemed safe for public health. Housing was planned for 110,000 to 120,000 residents. The design also incorporated extensive landscaping, including parks, sports grounds, and a central park for culture and recreation.

However, the defining feature of the "socialist city" (*sotsmisto*) was not the architecture itself, but the organization of daily life. During the era of the first Five-Year Plan, it was believed that in the future communist society, the traditional family would gradually disappear. Socialist cities were intended to serve as a transitional stage toward this future. For this reason, the concept of the "socialization of daily life" was actively incorporated into these designs: communal dining halls replaced private kitchens, while public bathhouses and laundries took the place of private bathrooms. Nurseries and kindergartens were designed to facilitate the full integration of women into the workforce. The authorities presented this as a key component of the new socialist society.

In Makiivka, a complex, five-tiered hierarchy of residential structures was planned. The basic unit was the individual living space—an apartment or a dormitory room. This was followed by residential buildings, housing complexes, city blocks, and entire districts. The most radical form was the "commune house" (*budynok-komuna*), where an individual’s private space was reduced to little more than a place to sleep, while the majority of daily life was meant to unfold in shared communal spaces—dining halls, libraries, laundries, clubs, and recreation rooms.

Despite the grand scale of this utopian vision, these projects were never fully realized. The authorities’ primary focus was on rapid, forced industrialization rather than the improvement of living conditions. While housing for workers was indeed constructed, it largely consisted of basic dormitories and barracks, rather than the utopian urban mechanisms originally envisioned.  Nova Horlivka: The Unrealized Capital of the Donbas

Nova Horlivka stands as the most ambitious urban planning utopia in the Donbas. The area near Horlivka held 63% of the region’s coking coal reserves, making it a highly promising industrial hub. Rapid population growth was anticipated for the city. In 1930, a decision was made to establish an entirely new city—Nova Horlivka (sometimes referred to as "Novhordonbas")—adjacent to the existing Horlivka. The plan included relocating the administrative center of the Donetsk Oblast there. The motivations were not solely economic: Donetsk (formerly Yuzivka) had been founded by foreigners, whereas Horlivka was associated with the labor movement and revolutionary history.

The site chosen for Nova Horlivka lay to the west of the old city. The initial design was developed by architects Oleksiy Dushkin and Emanuil Hamze. The city was planned with distinct zoning; industrial facilities were to be situated 1.5 to 6 kilometers away from residential areas. The design envisioned five residential districts, each accommodating 25,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. Extensive landscaping was also planned: a large central park, green corridors along streets, plantings within city blocks, and a protective green belt at least two kilometers wide surrounding the entire city.

The primary urban axis was to be a 70-meter-wide thoroughfare running from east to west, which would then branch off in two directions.  Along this axis, plans were made to locate the House of Soviets, the Party Committee building, a theater, a museum, a library, an archive, hotels, a department store, and a medical dispensary. The project also envisioned the construction of a new railway station and new major thoroughfares, as well as the introduction of a tram system.

The designs for the residential districts were particularly noteworthy. The planning was based on residential complexes covering an area of ​​9–10 hectares. The development featured large Constructivist-style buildings characterized by continuous horizontal and vertical glazing, flat roofs, and the apsidal forms of stairwells. Some of the residential blocks were to be connected to kindergartens, nurseries, and public buildings via enclosed, elevated walkways. Another housing typology consisted of three-story buildings featuring massive internal atriums that spanned the full height of the structures. These atriums were designed to house winter gardens and fountains, while the apartments opened onto internal galleries linked by footbridges.

In 1932–1933, "Dipromisto" developed a more detailed plan for the city center. It envisioned five large squares, one of which was intended for demonstrations and mass gatherings. Gradually, the Constructivist aesthetic began to give way to a more monumental, ensemble-based style of architecture. By 1933, a new design had emerged, created by architects Blokhin, Salzman, Meyerson, Rosenfeld, and Sokolov. This plan largely abandoned many Constructivist concepts; the city was organized into a rectangular grid of blocks, while the main thoroughfare was transformed into a grand, landscaped avenue featuring squares, arches, obelisks, and colonnades.

In October 1932, concrete plans were drawn up to relocate regional institutions to Horlivka. Lists of necessary equipment, transport, and construction materials were compiled, and construction schedules were established. A hotel and the regional council building were slated to be the first structures erected. However, by May 1933, the construction trust was dissolved, and the project was effectively scrapped. The reasons were entirely practical: a lack of funding, issues with material supplies, poor infrastructure, and chaos within the construction process itself. Compounding these problems was the Holodomor, which drastically reduced the available workforce. There is also an urban legend claiming that Lazar Kaganovich failed to reach Horlivka because his car became stuck in a mud pit on the unpaved road leading to the city. Upon returning, he rescinded the decision to move the administrative center there, remarking, "There aren't even any roads—how could this be a regional center?" Ultimately, the "New Horlivka" remained one of the largest unrealized architectural utopias in the Donbas.

Source: https://www.symvoly.dn.ua/%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D1%96%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%96-%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%96%D1%97-%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%83/