Serhiiuk, I and Kalakoski, I (2023) Demolition or adaptation? Post-industrial buildings in Ukraine. Buildings & Cities, 4(1), pp. 352-368. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Three case studies are presented that assess the post-industrial development of industrial sites in Ukraine. The comparative analysis is based on (1) the geographical location on the territory of the country (Ivano-Frankivsk, Poltava, Kharkiv), (2) the functional transformation of the buildings (from the initial functions to new ones), and (3) the impact on the further development of the urban environment (in urban planning, economic, environmental and social security directions). These sites are considered as post-Soviet architectural heritage, which have been overlooked by the society and positioned as dissonant and controversial. The stereotypical perceptions concerning industrial sites are examined in order to rethink their status in the future. The research shows that the question of industrial heritage is manifold and cannot be solved without understanding the complexity and uniqueness of each individual case.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | demolition; dissonant heritage; functional transformation; industrial heritage; postindustrial buildings; Ukraine; urban development |
| Index terms: | adaptation, transformation, comparative analysis, industrial development, society, case study, Ukraine, complexity, urban environment, urban planning, urban development |
| Subjects: | urban planning, data analysis and analytics, user focus, business, construction type, data collection methods, urban sustainability, systems engineering, communities and social development, urban design, Geography |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Governance, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here