Introduction. About 60% of Kharkiv’s area is occupied by detached housing and low-rise residential development. This is a heterogeneous urban fabric of pre-revolutionary sloboda settlements, pre-war quarters, post-war individual houses and late Soviet self-built buildings, which for a long time remained on the periphery of systemic urban planning analysis. In many cases, such territories were considered not as full-fledged residential areas with their own structure, history, social ties and development potential, but rather as a reserve for future densification, reconstruction or replacement with new buildings. For Kharkiv, this problem becomes particularly relevant in the war and post-war context. Decisions on the renovation, densification, preservation or restructuring of low-rise areas can no longer be made according to the simplified logic of physical deterioration or the investment attractiveness of a particular site. The same technical condition of the building may have different urban planning significance depending on the morphology of the quarter, the degree of its integration into the urban structure, the nature of land use and the social stability of the residents. Therefore, the assessment of such territories should be not only an inventory of existing problems, but also the basis for differentiated management decisions.
The purpose of the article is to summarize international approaches to the assessment of low-rise residential areas and determine the logic of their combination for a large Ukrainian city. The article considers four complementary approaches: morphological, construction-technical, index and participatory. Their combination allows us to move from a generalized perception of the private sector as "problematic" or "outdated" buildings to a more accurate assessment of different types of low-rise areas and the corresponding strategies for their development.
The morphological approach answers the question of what spatial structure a district has and which elements of this structure are stable. M. R. G. Сonzen considered urban form through street plan, development and land use, which change at different speeds [1]. K. Kropf supplemented this logic with a hierarchy of elements from building and plot to block and urban area [2]. For Kharkiv, this is fundamental: even a rebuilt block can retain a “genetic memory” in the configuration of streets, plots and building fronts. The practical implementation of the approach involves morphological mapping, Character Area Assessment [3] and spatial integration analysis, in particular using Space Syntax [4]. It allows us to distinguish between physical aging of the environment and morphological degradation: surface defects in decoration or wear and tear of individual buildings are not grounds for demolition, while chaotic compaction, disruption of the street front, violation of parcellation or atypical scale of new development indicate a loss of structure. Therefore, morphological analysis should be the primary assessment framework.
Building-technical assessment developed as a tool for allocating resources during post-war reconstruction. The British HHSRS assesses not only physical deterioration, but also risks to residents across 29 hazard categories [5]. The Dutch practice of wijkschouw involves regular external inspection of neighbourhoods with photographic documentation, GPS referencing and data entry into GIS [6]. This procedure provides reproducible material for identifying dilapidated buildings and areas of concentrated deterioration.
In Ukraine, a close regulatory base is DSTU B V.1.2-9:2008 and VSN 53-86(p), but their application often does not form a single municipal database. At the same time, the technical condition of a building does not determine the development prospects of the district: the same level of deterioration in a well-integrated historical quarter and in an isolated peripheral area requires different strategies.
The comprehensive index approach arose from the understanding that physical reconstruction does not stop degradation if social and locational factors are not taken into account. G. Galster described the relationship between housing condition, social vulnerability and further decline as a spiral process [7]. Therefore, modern indices combine physical, demographic, economic and spatial indicators.
Examples are the British Index of Multiple Deprivation, the American Social Vulnerability Index and the Korean indices of housing renovation [8-10]. Their advantage is a transparent ranking of priorities, but the main limitation is aggregation: the same final value can hide the different nature of the problems. For Kharkiv, an additional obstacle is the lack of reliable data at the quarter level, so the index should be used as a final comparison tool after morphological and technical analysis.
The formation of the participatory tradition is associated with criticism of mass slum demolition programs in US cities, when the creation of technically new housing was often accompanied by the destruction of socially stable areas. Jane Jacobs questioned the legitimacy of planning without the participation of residents, and S. Arnstein distinguished between genuine participation and formal informing [11]. In the Japanese practice of Machizukuri, the community is considered not as a consultant, but as an active co-agent in the planning process [12].
The socio-perceptual block is also important for assessing low-rise areas: mental maps by K. Lynch, behavioral observations by J. Gehl, and Place Pulse, an MIT Media Lab model that assesses perceptions of safety, liveliness, beauty, and neglect based on street photos [13]. In Kharkiv, the full consensus process is complicated by population displacement, but interviews, mental mapping, and Street View analysis can verify the results of other approaches.
The logic of a hybrid combination. None of the approaches is self-sufficient. Morphological shows the structure and origin of the district, technical - the condition of buildings, indexical - the relative priority of intervention, participatory - local knowledge and perception. The hybrid methodology should not mechanically compile indicators, but set the sequence of analysis.
For Kharkiv, a five-step scheme is appropriate: 1) morphological mapping and delimitation of homogeneous areas; 2) field construction and technical audit; 3) assessment of spatial integration and location potential using GIS; 4) social-perceptual verification through Street View ML, interviews and mental maps; 5) a decision matrix that defines one of four profiles - conservation, regeneration, contextual densification or restructuring.
For example, an area with high wear and tear, but with a coherent morphology, good integration and strong identification of residents is a candidate for regeneration without disrupting the existing spatial structure. The same level of wear and tear in a morphologically fragmented and isolated area may require restructuring. It is this difference that is not revealed by any single-parameter method.
Conclusions. International practice shows that the assessment of low-rise residential areas should be multidimensional. As shown in Table 1, the morphological, building-technical, index-based and participatory approaches differ in their subject, theoretical basis, tools, advantages and limitations, but they do not compete with each other. Rather, they describe different aspects of the same urban fabric and become most effective when combined within a single assessment framework.
Table 1. Comparative characteristics of approaches to the assessment of low-rise residential areas
For large cities of Ukraine, the morphological approach should be considered methodologically primary, since it makes it possible to distinguish between different types of estate fabric and not reduce planning decisions solely to physical deterioration. A building-technical audit is necessary to document hazardous conditions and zones of concentrated wear; an index-based assessment helps rank priorities; and a participatory approach allows the results to be verified through residents’ experience and local knowledge.
The proposed five-stage scheme combines analytical completeness with practical realism. It can become the basis for methodological recommendations for auditing low-rise residential areas in the post-war reconstruction of Ukrainian cities.
References:
1. Conzen M. R. G. Alnwick, Northumberland : A Study in Town-Plan Analysis. London : Institute of British Geographers, 1960. 122 p.
2. Kropf K. The Handbook of Urban Morphology. Chichester : Wiley, 2017. 256 p.
3. Birmingham City Council. Birmingham Residential Character Study. Birmingham : Birmingham City Council, 2012. 84 p.
4. Hillier B., Hanson J. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1984. 281 p.
5. DCLG. Housing Health and Safety Rating System: Operating Guidance. London : DCLG, 2006. 226 p.
6. Gemeente Rotterdam. Wijkschouw Handleiding. Rotterdam : Dienst Stedenbouw en Volkshuisvesting, 2014. 32 p.
7. Galster G. Research on Discrimination in Housing and Mortgage Markets. Housing Policy Debate. 1992. Vol. 3, No. 2. P. 637-683.
8. Nardo M., Saisana M., Saltelli A., Tarantola S. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Paris : OECD, 2008. 162 p.
9. Flanagan B., Gregory E., Hallisey E., Heitgerd J., Lewis B. A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 2011. Vol. 8, No. 1. P. 1-22.
10. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The English Indices of Deprivation 2019. London, 2019. 38 p.
11. Arnstein S. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1969. Vol. 35, No. 4. P. 216-224.
12. Sorensen A., Funck C. (eds.). Living Cities in Japan: Citizens’ Movements, Machizukuri and Local Environments. London : Routledge, 2007. 316 p.
13. Salesses P., Schechtner K., Hidalgo C. A. The Collaborative Image of the City: Mapping the Inequality of Urban Perception. PLOS ONE. 2013. Vol. 8, No. 7. P. 1-12.
|
Голосування 
Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст мишкою і натисніть Ctrl + Enter