Every epoch leaves its architectural footprint, initiates and creates new trends and styles of construction. The present epoch is referred to in different terms, the most euphonic of which, perhaps, is the epoch of industrialization and information technologies. It is also called the time of primitivism and consumerism. Both tendencies are present, and both of them are reflected in architecture. This concerns the entire Ukraine, especially big cities, where so much money is paid for land in historical centers that all other values — cultural monuments and protected areas — fade in comparison. Unfortunately, Ukrainians who have power and money did not stand the test of this money, and as a result of it Ukraine either loses monuments of architecture, or they gradually collapse themselves because of negligence, or are distorted due to the presence of modern buildings. If the chaos pertaining to building policy in Ukraine is not stopped, we risk losing entire layers of Ukrainian culture and history forever.
Kyiv can serve as an example of how all this began about 20 years ago and how it continues now. So, starting from the capital, The Day initiates a series of publications dedicated to the architectural changes taking place in our cities.
If people who have lived in Kyiv, say, for 55 years come together, if they want to talk about the city, they will suddenly realize that they are talking about… different places. It is true that each city develops and changes — new buildings, bridges, parks, and lanes appear. But there are sacred things one cannot touch or deform. Unfortunately, this does not hold in Kyiv or in Ukraine.
The Day decided to go for a ride down the central streets of the city with the architect Oleh Hrechukh, and look at how it changed in recent years: what, where, and when was built, how it looks from the viewpoint of common sense, observance of international requirements, and aesthetics.
We met near the Paton Bridge at noon, when streets were more or less free. We rode off…
One of the biggest sins of the capital’s developers is attacking buffer zones. The Day repeatedly wrote about UNESCO’s warnings regarding this matter (first of all they dealt with the buffer zones near the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra and the National Reserve Sofia Kyivska).
“The scheme of the master plan of Kyiv, available on the website of the municipal organization, at the Kyiv City State Administration, the ‘Center for City Planning and Architecture’ shows adjustments of protected zones and architectural reserves in the city’s downtown. According to the resolution of the Kyiv City Administration No. 979 dated 2002, one cannot build high-rise buildings in marked areas. Even the recent version of the master plan of 2010 states that the development of commercial real estate in the central part (Pechersk and the central historic core) is restricted. There is a map adjusting buffer zones of monuments of architecture. Approving the boundaries of these zones and their protection is required by UNESCO. During the last UNESCO conference an official conclusion was made that the issues regarding the buffer zones (where high-rise buildings shouldn’t appear) must be settled in Kyiv,” tells Hrechukh and shows printed out color maps (one can find them on the Internet: http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1917).
According to him, these zones, which are supposed to protect monuments of architecture and architectural complexes of the Lavra and Sofia monasteries from the visual impact of new buildings, were destroyed long ago. We are going to the Left Bank to look from there how the Lavra complex looks like after the attack.
We stopped on the bridge for the photographer to take pictures and Oleh continued:
“From this side we see the complex of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra in front of us. The buildings are from the 12th-19th centuries. We see that behind it a new building emerges (the construction was started in 2008, at 7a Klovsky Descent), which from some observation points superposes exactly on the Lavra’s belfry. So far, with forty floors, it is the tallest in Ukraine. If on average the height of one floor is 3.3 meters, this is already over 130 meters plus technical floors and a “crown” at the top. 140 meters overall, while the Lavra’s belfry is just 96.5 meters. This ‘elite’ residential building belonging to the developer ‘Zhytlobud’ is situated in the zone of visual influence on the Lavra’s complex, which has been protected by UNESCO since 1990. This residential building was approved back in 2003-2006, and is still being built. The object passed the city planning council several times, with the number of projected floors gradually increasing along the way. The main licensing documents regarding this are readily available on the website of the developer, it also mentions that only one apartment remains unsold.”
Approaching the Rusanivska Embankment, Oleh said that earlier the Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture operated in Kyiv. It determined these positions — the observation sites, as one cannot tolerate ruining the visual appearance of a monument. He also adduces arguments that this building wouldn’t have been here at all if Kyiv were the capital of, say, Hungary.
“On the Left Bank there are a few silvery multistory buildings constructed about 50 meters from the river bed of the Dnipro, in 16a Okipna Street. There is the Water Code, according to which one cannot build closer than 100 meters to water,” continues Oleh. “Very many norms used today in construction exist since the Soviet times, when tall buildings of 30 floors were something inaccessible and experimental. And now they are real, but the norms are adjusted to them very slowly. It was supposed that along such rivers as the Dnipro there should be a sanitary protection zone, securing [the area] from technological disasters or the elements. But in 2006-07 already several projects of new buildings located too close to the Dnipro’s water front were submitted for the consideration of the city planning council.”
We’re moving along the Rusanivska Embankment to find the most appropriate place and come out of the car to assess the complex of the Lavra with the monsters hanging over it. We see the panorama where the slopes of the Dnipro are paled by skyscrapers.
“If all this is considered from the viewpoint of the Ukrainian and international legislation, there are gross violations everywhere,” says Oleh. “The capital grows and it is clear that in Kyiv something will be built all the time, as in all developing capitals. It is clear that there will always be people who will want to invest funds in profitable constructions. All this can be done in a civilized way. There is the Left Bank, a training ground for skyscrapers. There are industrial zones further form the downtown on the Right Bank.”
Rusanivka’s embankment is fine but neglected. Oleh has comments regarding it as well.
“The practice of such embankments exists everywhere in the world where there is a waterway in the downtown. Like with cities on the Danube: Budapest, Vienna, Bratislava. There are also good and comfortable embankments in Copenhagen, Oslo, Paris, London, and Lyon. The main theaters, public places, museums, and entertainment objects are placed along the river,” he says.
According to him, there were attempts to do this in Kyiv as well, because Rusanivka is a good district from the viewpoint of comfort and proximity to water, and also because of the view of the historic panorama of Kyiv.
“But if we want everything to function as in Europe, we need to develop detailed plans on the level of a development strategy and a concrete plan of the city’s activities, so that it is a territory of priority development, not permanent decline,” continues the architect. “Let’s take a look at Budapest, for example. There is the left and the right parts of the city on the banks of the Danube. The best hotels and pedestrian areas, cafes, restaurants, and theaters are located along the left bank of the river, the lower one, so that one could observe the right bank with the palace on Buda Hill from them (these unique sights bring benefits in the sphere of tourism).”
Looking at these almost twins of reinforced concrete over the Lavra, one thinks that if the barbarous policy regarding the city development persists in Kyiv, they are not the last ones.
Oleh is confident that when the investment climate gets warmer, the construction will resume. Many people expected that during the crisis someone would change or revise their plans, but the general tendency is obvious — nothing will change.
It goes without saying that the violations concern the entire ancient center of the city, which still spots the remnants of the Kyiv Fortress. Oleh has his opinion on these violations:
“If one looks at the scheme of the boundaries of the Kyiv Fortress, an architectural reserve, according to the still effective resolution of the Kyiv City State Administration dated 2002, and the textual description of the boundaries of the reserve territory, and also compares it with the existing situation, one should forget about keeping to the regulations in this document. There is also a list of architectural reserves, with the streets denoting these boundaries accurately marked and the scheme of their location. This is around the Sofia Kyivska and the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. Despite this rather old resolution of Kyiv’s authorities about the protection of these places, in the buffer zone, which was also approved by UNESCO and available on the official website of this international institution, the situation is critical and shows a disdainful attitude of responsible people to any regulating documents,” says our guide.
According to him, the chaotic development started approximately in 1998-99. It is wrong to accuse someone specific — Omelchenko, Chernovetsky or Babushkin, who was the chief architect of the capital at a time, believes Hrechukch.
“This is not a personal responsibility of someone specific. A critical mass of people who once influenced the decisions or made the decisions themselves, and those who had the money to pay for all this was gathered. They decided that this would bring them a considerable payback. Someone bought these apartments in high-rise buildings in historical zones in order to resell them, to invest money. And, of course, one more reason is that no one stopped it. There were local protests of separated communities. Someone protected his yard, a green public garden, or an illegally built garage. Architects mainly don’t protest: because these are jobs for many, good salaries, and ambitions, after all, when something gigantic drawn on paper is realized in practice for someone’s enormous sum of money,” explains Oleh.
When the Kyiv Pechersk Fortress functioned, there was a citadel around it — banks 6 to 12 meters high, which are now considerably ruined. When there was a military garrison, an arsenal with weapons, the commandant’s office, and the bureau of the governor general, a church with the military “bias” functioned at the garrison. In the 1930s this church was ruined due to the building a new, Soviet image of Kyiv. In the 1990s there were plans to rebuild this church. Currently there is the hotel Saliut near this place.
“But while they were talking about the program of rebuilding Kyiv’s temples, on the place of the St. Nicholas Military Cathedral a new 18-floor building grew (the construction and investment company K.A.N. Development). There were several attempts to find out who the owner was, but the situation is very complicated, because the land was allotted for one company, then it was resold, some started building it, others continued – it is such a multilayered scheme which makes it difficult to determine the responsible person, the one who called the tune,” says Oleh. “It stands exactly where the temple was.”
