Results: Kharkiv Freedom Square Revival
Kharkiv, the second-largest city of Ukraine noted for its combination of culture, education, and industry, is a mere thirty kilometres from the Russian border. Its long-term masterplan is being created by a local and international team led by the Norman Foster Foundation. This followed a request for help by the mayor to me, in my role as Advocate for the United Nations Forum of Mayors in 2022. A team of global and local experts have since been working on a masterplan for the cities long term future. In parallel with master planning, a small number of shorter-term pilot projects have been identified including Freedom Square, one of the largest in the world and at the heart of the historic core of the city. One end of the space is dominated by the war damaged Regional Headquarters, an integral part of the competition brief. At the other end is the Derzhprom – a constructivist masterpiece of 1928 and a UNESCO World Heritage site.
With an awareness of the Berlin Reichstag the mayor initially asked me to undertake a similar working memorial for Kharkiv. Instead, I advocated a competition that would be open to Ukrainian and international architects, the results of which have now been evaluated by a jury of ten local and global experts led by the mayor and myself.
The conclusion of the jury is that no single entry addressed in a balanced and adequate manner the diverse needs of the key building and the public space. So, instead of a first, second and third prize the jury has given equal recognition and prize money to three outstanding projects for their different contributions. The winner of the separate category for students was one of the most outstanding entries – a worthy prize in its own right.
The competition is seen as a success, particularly by the local representatives, who found it valuable in starting to redefine their needs – symbolically as well as functionally. The importance of gravitas in any proposal was a theme that recurred in the discussions. The intention now is to create a second competition which will be open to new as well as previous entrants.
The jury were mindful that the final design for The Reichstag evolved from a competition that morphed into a second stage. The jury was united against those projects which sought to fill the civic space with multiple activities, summed up by one juror as the “Tivoli Gardens” approach. On the other hand, the jury expressed concerns about over monumentalising the space – for example with columns that marched the lengths of the square.
On behalf of the city of Kharkiv, the Mayor and his colleagues expressed their gratitude for the efforts of all of the participants and emphasised that the results of the competition will help to shape the future of the historic core of the city.
Key reflections from the jury
An ambitious brief: The competition brief set forth ambitious goals, yet its broad scope left room for interpretation, leading to proposals that diverged significantly from the intended vision. Many participants did not fully align with the local context or site-specific realities, particularly in terms of practicality and the symbolic weight of the space.
Avoiding overprogramming: The jury expressed concern about projects that overly fragmented the square with excessive features, likening some to “Tivoli Gardens” in their attempt to fill the space with varied programming. This approach risked trivializing the symbolic and monumental essence of Freedom Square, which demands a balance between openness, gravitas, and functionality.
Balancing innovation and feasibility: While some proposals introduced imaginative and bold concepts, they often fell short in terms of feasibility, either due to technical constraints—such as Kharkiv’s complex underground infrastructure —or their limited adaptability to the needs of a large-scale civic gathering space.
Paving the way for future stages: The jury highlighted that, much like the multi- stage process of reimagining the Reichstag in Berlin, this competition should be viewed as a foundational step for the next stages of planning the Freedom Square and the Kharkiv Regional State Administration Building recovery. It establishes critical parameters for the next phase, including the need for clearer guidelines, deeper community engagement, and a sharper focus on Freedom Square’s symbolic, civic, and practical functions.
________________________________________________________________________
WINNER
Memory
Jansen Che
Australia
“My participation in competitions has been partly inspired by Seth Godin’s philosophy on creative practice. Competitions provide a structured opportunity to show up and do the work—a deliberate act of commitment to engage with the process, challenge assumptions, and share a vision with the world. They serve as a framework that encourages innovation, fosters growth, and contributes to a broader dialogue within the field. There is inherent value in sharing ideas generously and practicing one’s craft with discipline.”
_________________________________________
JURY FEEDBACK summary
Strengths: This project centers on a below-ground memorial, providing a contemplative space that honors Kharkiv’s resilience and history. The oculus design offers a symbolic connection between the memorial and the surrounding square, emphasizing themes of reflection, transparency, and accessibility. The design preserves the square’s openness, maintaining its monumental scale while incorporating modern elements that acknowledge the city’s recent challenges. In addition, the project proposes the development of the underground part of the Regional State Administration Building as a public space and as a new group entrance and transit pedestrian corridor, which successfully combines the space of the building and the square. The inner courtyard of the building is designed as a functional atrium, which is a public space.
Challenges: A prominent feature of the proposal—the use of a grid of large freestanding columns—has drawn criticism from the jury. While intended to provide rhythm and structure to the square, the columns were seen as too reminiscent of imperial or authoritarian aesthetics, which risks sending the wrong symbolic message. This aspect, in particular, contrasts with the square’s identity as a space of freedom and democracy. Additionally, the underground memorial, though conceptually compelling, raises practical concerns due to Kharkiv’s complex subterranean infrastructure. Questions also remain about how the square would accommodate both contemplative reflection and active civic use. Ultimately, while the project introduces strong architectural elements, the jury found the columnar approach at odds with the spirit of Kharkiv’s aspirations for an open, inclusive, and forward-looking space.
________________________________________________________________________
WINNER
In-time
Daniel Mintz
Israel
“Competitions allow us to respond to the challenges posed by the human condition both globally and locally.”
_________________________________________
JURY FEEDBACK summary
Strengths: This submission highlights a cohesive and understated approach to the redesign of Freedom Square, focusing on preserving its monumental scale while introducing subtle modern updates. The proposal’s use of a translucent facade for the Kharkiv Regional State Administration Building is particularly noteworthy, softening the building and symbolizing transparency and accessibility. This intervention reflects a thoughtful reinterpretation of the building’s historical significance while signaling a forward-looking vision for Kharkiv. The project authors also focused on transforming the internal space of the Regional State Administration Building and creating new inclusive public spaces.
Challenges: One of the central elements of the proposal, a reflecting pool, has raised concerns. While visually striking, the pool detracts from the square’s role as a flexible and functional gathering space. Its placement and scale reduce the square’s ability to accommodate large public events, and the practical implications of maintaining a pool in Kharkiv’s climate and infrastructural conditions make it less feasible. Overall, while the restrained approach offers a dignified vision, the reliance on a reflecting pool limits the square’s versatility and does not fully embrace its potential as an active civic hub.
________________________________________________________________________
WINNER
Garden state
Nischal Ba
India
“Competitions provide a platform to push creative boundaries, explore experimental ideas, and engage in global conversations about design. They challenge us to innovate and hone our craft while staying inspired.”
_________________________________________
JURY FEEDBACK summary
Strengths: This design introduces a seasonal landscape framework that respects Freedom Square’s monumental scale while integrating adaptable public amenities. Biodiverse green zones, shaded pathways, and multifunctional spaces create opportunities for year-round use. The proposal thoughtfully considers ecological sustainability and offers a more human-centered approach to the square’s design, emphasizing relaxation and connection to nature.
Challenges: While the project’s focus on landscaping is commendable, it risks diluting the square’s symbolic importance. The division of the square into smaller zones could compromise the sense of openness and gravitas that defines the site. Furthermore, the traffic rerouting proposed in this scheme has raised concerns about feasibility and its impact on the broader urban context. Additionally, the constraints posed by the existing underground infrastructure limit the potential for certain features, such as an underground museum or water ponds in front of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration Building, making these elements impractical within the current conditions.
________________________________________________________________________
STUDENT AWARD
History & future
Qiqi Wu
United Kingdom
“Design competitions provide a unique opportunity to unleash creativity and innovation without the constraints of real-world project limitations. They offer a platform to explore uncharted ideas and push the boundaries of design thinking. Observing the incredible creativity showcased in these competitions has always inspired me, motivating me to participate and contribute even a small spark of inspiration to others. Additionally, competitions enrich my portfolio, provide invaluable learning experiences, and allow me to connect with peers and professionals, fostering relationships that support my future career.”
_________________________________________
JURY FEEDBACK summary
Strengths: This project demonstrates impressive creativity and a deep sensitivity to the site’s needs. The design proposes lush green landscapes surrounding the square, interspersed with subtle interventions that enhance usability while maintaining the square’s grandeur. The Kharkiv Regional State Administration Building’s restored facade integrates well with the surrounding public space, creating a harmonious balance between history and future aspirations.
Challenges: The project’s strength in landscape design could be complemented by a stronger architectural vision for the square itself. Additionally, its proposals for activating the square with public programming remain underdeveloped, leaving room for further refinement.
________________________________________________________________________
SHORTLISTED PROJECTS
The post Results: Kharkiv Freedom Square Revival appeared first on Competitions.archi.
