Contribution of Ukrainian Specialists to the Reconstruction of Tashkent

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to introduce previously unknown and unexplored facts from the history of the reconstruction of Tashkent after the 1966 earthquake, drawing on documents from the Central State Archive of Science and Technology (TsDNTA) of Ukraine. The research methodology is based on the principles of historicism and objectivity and the use of special historical methods. The historical-comparative method was employed in examining the reconstruction of the capital of Uzbekistan in the context of the history of Soviet urban planning. The historical-systemic method allowed the author to analyze interactions between various agents of reconstruction not just as an episode of urban planning and development, but also as an example of the mechanisms of official decision-making and execution in the USSR and of coordinating the actions of union and republican bodies. The historical-genetic (longitudinal) method, along with the method of cartographic visualization, made it possible to trace the development of Tashkent’s public infrastructure and to identify and illustrate general trends in Soviet residential construction. The paper’s chief contribution rests in the source value of the previously unexplored and unpublished documents from the TsDNTA of Ukraine that illuminate the history of the reconstruction of Tashkent, as well as history of Soviet urban planning in the 1960s and 1970s more generally. This material is brought to the attention of the research community for the first time. Given the growing academic interest in the history of the late Soviet city, the study of documents from the holdings of the TsDNTA of Ukraine relating particularly to urban planning in Soviet Ukraine is a promising avenue of inquiry. The new evidence allows us to enrich and amend our knowledge about the contribution of Ukrainian specialists, particularly from Kharkiv, to the reconstruction of Tashkent, identify the organizations involved in this undertaking, explore the specifics of Soviet interagency relations, and compare the new Tashkent “microdistricts” with the urban residential neighborhoods that were being actively developed in large cities of Ukraine at the time.