But there are two gray buildings in Kharkiv that cannot be discussed separately. They were built simultaneously and are related not only by age or style, but also by construction. These are the income houses on Chornoglazivska Street, numbers 6 and 8.
The designs for both buildings were created in 1912 by Mykola Kolodiazhnyi, commissioned by scientist and master of pharmacy Lazar Rozenfeld (no, they are not relatives). However, due to numerous conflicts with the client regarding revisions and the project budget, Kolodiazhnyi refused to take part in the implementation and withdrew from this venture. The duties of supervising the construction then passed to engineer Mykhailo Roitenberg — and later, the authorship of the designs themselves was mistakenly attributed to him as well.
What is interesting about these two buildings? They were erected at the same time, have identical numbers of floors, similar stylistics, proportions, and the texture of their gray façades — however, the dynamics of life, decline, and revival were completely different for each.
For many years, the building at number 8 was in much worse condition — back in the 1980s it was declared unsafe and evacuated. No one took care of the building, so eventually its dangerous state came true, and the roof collapsed. Walking along the street, you could see the sky through the empty eye sockets of its windows, stitched with beams of the building’s metal skeleton.
There were several attempts to start reconstruction of the monument — but there was always a lack of either funds or motivation to take on such a complex project. The city authorities also did not dare to demolish the building, although attempts were made in that direction as well.
Eventually, a miracle happened, and the building fell into the hands of Alter Development, whose team developed a detailed plan to save it. Now, walking along Chornoglazivska Street, you can see how the building has literally come back to life. The sculptures decorating the façade have all been restored, the texture of the walls has been preserved, the original gray color of the building remains gray, but it no longer carries the air of neglect — now it is a dignified grayness of a revived modernist heritage.
The neighboring building at number 6 is holding on. It is still residential, but over time it will also deteriorate. We can only hope that the worthy example of reconstruction, which rises in sharp contrast next door, will encourage the city authorities not to repeat the same mistake twice and not to allow these two related buildings to swap roles completely.
