FACTORS IN THE FORMATION OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN KHARKIV: A HISTORICAL AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE 17TH–18TH CENTURIES

This article presents a historical and spatial analysis of the formation of residential districts in the city of Kharkiv, with a focus on the earliest stages of urban development. The study explores two key periods in the city’s evolution: its founding as a Cossack fortress and its transformation into a Sloboda town. Rather than providing a full historical overview of Kharkiv’s urban history, the research concentrates on the foundational phases of its residential spatial structure. The introduction outlines the unique context of Kharkiv’s growth, characterized by the combination of spontaneous settlement, adaptation to natural terrain, and shifts in city-forming functions. A significant proportion of the city’s area remains occupied by low-rise private housing‒tracing its origins to the Sloboda settlements of the 17th–18th centuries ‒ which now faces challenges related to integration into the contemporary urban fabric. The research emphasizes the spatial conflicts that emerge at the interface between these historically formed districts and modern high-density development, which underscores the need for nuanced urban planning strategies. The study aims to identify the core principles behind the formation of Kharkiv’s residential areas and understand how natural conditions, military and administrative logics, and social stratification influenced spatial patterns. It employs an interdisciplinary methodology, combining architectural history, urban planning, cartographic analysis, and socio-geographic approaches. Historical maps, general plans, archival records, and previous academic research are used to trace the transformations of Kharkiv’s urban form. Key results include the identification of two primary spatial models: the fortified city of the mid-17th century and the Sloboda-type settlements that emerged in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The fortress acted as a defensive-administrative nucleus, while Slobodas developed into semi-autonomous residential units with social, functional, and professional differentiation. Over time, the regular planning grid of the growing imperial city overlapped with the organic morphology of the Sloboda settlements, forming a complex, layered spatial structure. Particular attention is given to how landscape factors and social organization influenced settlement location, spatial hierarchy, and the internal logic of neighborhood planning. The conclusion emphasizes that Kharkiv's development was not a linear progression from primitive to modern, but rather a process of accumulation and adaptation. The resulting urban morphology, shaped by multiple layers of socio-functional and territorial evolution, forms a valuable heritage and resource for future planning. The findings of the study can inform contemporary urban renewal policies by offering models for the integration of historic low-rise residential zones into the evolving structure of large cities, balancing spatial identity with the demands of modernization.