It is not a new piece of information in principle that city builders, encouraged by the first “epoch-making” construction projects in Kyiv, have decided to go further and begin rebuilding temples. Defying criticism leveled against them, architectural bureaucrats are still trumpeting their plans for the future.
Last Friday, too, the Kyiv City Administration press service confirmed to the Novyny advertising and information agency that Kyiv’s Mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko plans to have temples built at the expense of budgetary and charitable funds. So The Day again decided to broach this subject and find out the opinion of some professionals who are not indifferent to the way the capital is going to look.
Olena TITOVA, Academic Secretary, All-Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Monuments:
“You cannot, unfortunately, call this policy other than ‘ingenious Herostratus-style deeds.’ That the places of worship are being erected on a mass scale is evidence of the speculation about, rather than the revival of spirituality. The cynicism of bureaucrats is striking: while negligible amounts are being allotted for the preservation of authentic monuments (which destroys the aura of an ancient city), what is being erected immediately receives the status of an architectural monument. Meanwhile, the law requires that the newly-built structures be exclusively called mockups. Moreover, many of them cannot even be called ‘mockups’ because they often have nothing to do with what stood at their place a few centuries ago. International charters on the protection of architectural heritage strongly recommend that no structures be erected if there is no exact information or graphic materials about their exterior. How do then the hypocritical claims to Kyiv’s ‘European’ architectural future tally with flouting the above-mentioned requirement?
“At the moment, the 11th-cerntury fresco at the Vydubytsky Monastery is in an awful condition. The Church of the Holy Savior on Berestiv is being studied by UNESCO, not by national bureaucrats from the governmental monument-protection agencies. The Pyrohiv museum received restoration funds only once in the past 12 years. When St. Sophia Square was being ‘gentrified,’ archeologists were denied an opportunity to carry out excavations (they had to literally snatch the finds from under the bulldozer’s blade) on the false grounds that there was no cultural stratum there! Will there be any cultural stratum left of the ‘dead’ structures now being put up?”
Valentyna IRSHENKO, Executive Director, Oles Honchar All-Ukrainian Foundation for the Restoration of Historical and Architectural Heritage:
“The Cabinet of Ministers approved the program of rebuilding 56 most outstanding monuments, one of them, a chapel on the grave of Hetman Doroshenko to be put up in Russia on the diaspora’s money, and 9 in Kyiv. The cathedrals of Assumption and St. Michael have already been built and the others are under construction or planning. Although some scholars categorically oppose the erection of what they call ‘mockups,’ the Foundation believes that Ukraine must restore the historically important monuments. As the Assumption Cathedral was destroyed and rebuilt ten times, it is natural that each restorer should have added something of his own, subjective, to its image; but we could not leave it in ruins. I also think it rational to rebuild the Holy Nativity Church in Podil, for it is the place where requiem was sung over Taras Shevchenko’s coffin. It would also be good to restore Khortytsia, where the situation is utterly disastrous: businessmen buy land, thus gradually turning the cradle of Cossacks into a construction site for McDonalds outlets and restaurants.
“Not an architect, I find it difficult to discuss the esthetic side of the matter, but I will say again: temples of historical and spiritual importance should be restored. Oles Honchar would also uphold this because the restoration of high-profile monuments shows that the nation firmly stands on its two feet. But I want to emphasize again that I only mean high profile monuments. For when the construction of sacral items becomes a serial-production affair, it endangers, not promotes, spirituality. It would be better if money was not squandered on numerous structures but was earmarked for the restoration of, as I said, high-profile monuments. The more so that the money for this kind of construction is partially taken from the budget. Finally, the builders and the professional public should reach a consensus.”
Lidiya PONOMARENKO, researcher of Kyiv:
“The motivation that guides the architectural ‘gold-diggers’ is best defined by the phrase ‘after a fast buck.’ Unfortunately, information about many houses of worship can only be found in area study publications. Yet, they should not be rebuilt because the architectural area where the temples used to stand is now entirely different, and it would be unwise to reconstruct them. But, by all accounts, this in no way embarrasses the present-day architects, as does the fact that the construction of churches takes the same time as that of mass-scale housing.
“Why do the Italians, Greeks, Carthaginians, and their guests find beauty precisely in their ‘ruins?’ Why did the Poles, who decided to restore the old city after it was wiped out by the Nazis, try to make it out of the authentic material and meticulously stuck to the old drawings? And why nobody in Ukraine is embarrassed by the fact that even the most competent experts are unaware of the number of domes on the Tithe Church to be rebuilt?
“On the other hand, the reason why the builders are so active is quite obvious. Here is an example: the cement ‘cushion’ under the Mykhailivska Square slates should be 50 cm deep. Yet, word has it that the required standard is only observed in the first two meters, then it is 35 cm. I think this fact, as well as the fact that sacral objects are being built at the fixed prices of restorative work (several times as expensive as those of construction), explains all.
“As one who knows about geodesy, I am also worried about another aspect of the urban construction policy. A far as I know, Ukrainian research institutes make no maps of old rivulets for lack of funds. Accordingly, this problem is not taken into account in construction. For example, they are going to build a multistory parking lot near the railway station. Meanwhile, the railway station stands on the alluvial ground, for this used to be the river Lybid’s mouth. As to the Ukrayina department store and the Besarabska Square building now under reconstruction, they virtually rest on a quagmire. So any transformations in these areas are potentially dangerous. I leave apart the esthetic side of the matter: for instance, causing irreparable damage to the center’s historical architecture.”
Larysa SKORYK, architect:
“What I can add to what I have always been saying is that Kyiv builders’ activity is just a disease. None of the world’s countries make temples like hot cakes. Moreover, it is impossible to understand or explain why they rebuild the objects of no historical or esthetic value.
“The reconstruction of some temples may be justified with due account of their ‘status.’ Yet, while rebuilding them, one must at last take into account the canons of rural construction science — one must know how to fit the structure into the current architectural space.
“The attitude of ‘civic fathers’ to the construction of sacral buildings is an ersatz that simplifies the symbol.”
