CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING THE “PLUS” STRATEGY IN THE POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION OF KHARKIV

This article critically examines the concept of “Plus”, developed by Anna Lacaton, Jean-Philippe Vassal, and Frédéric Druot, in the context of its application to the post-war reconstruction of Kharkiv, Ukraine. Originally proposed for a large-scale housing transformation in Bordeaux, the “Plus” strategy, based on the principles of addition, transformation, and reuse, has been recognized as an ethical and user-centered alternative to demolition. Its potential replication in Ukrainian cities devastated by Russian aggression, particularly in Kharkiv, where over 12,000 buildings were destroyed, raises critical questions about its scalability, effectiveness, and limitations. The study situates the concept of “Plus” within a broader discourse of architectural minimalism, participatory planning, and post-disaster reconstruction. It juxtaposes the theoretical aspirations of ethical intervention with the realities of socio-economic potential and cultural identity in the post-war Ukrainian context. The study draws on comparative case studies, including critiques by scholars such as Milena Tszynska and Francesca Gwidolin, to highlight concerns about the durability of materials, cost-effectiveness, and the risk of reproducing architectural monotony. Three key research questions guide the study: (1) Can ethics, understood as responsiveness to user needs and minimal intervention, replace aesthetics as the central concern of architectural practice? (2) Is the implementation of “double space”—one of the major spatial innovations of the “Plus” model—economically viable on a large scale, given the scale of destruction and limited financial resources? (3) To what extent does scaling up this model risk erasing regional architectural identity and creating a new form of non-place? The article also examines the role of architectural competitions, such as the Kharkiv Housing Challenge, which promote concepts aligned with Plus as a blueprint for sustainable reconstruction. Recognizing the strengths of adaptability, user-centered design, and reduced displacement, the analysis highlights that the successful application of “Plus” requires critical adaptation to local conditions, citizen participation, and strong political support. Ultimately, the article concludes that while the Plus approach offers an inspiring alternative to traditional reconstruction, its implementation in Kharkiv needs to be contextually sensitive, balancing ethical intentions with spatial diversity, economic realism, and long-term sustainability. Accordingly, the results presented here should be seen as an invitation to further research, interdisciplinary dialogue, and public debate on the potential for scaling up care-oriented spatial interventions in Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction.