The opening session of the revamped National UNESCO Commission revealed that the precarious condition of the Kyivan Cave Monastery (Pecherska Lavra) may force UNESCO to remove this architectural monument from its World Heritage List. According to Serhiy Krolevets, director- general of the Kyivan Cave Monastery, in the past few years the Lavra’s structures are deteriorating faster than they are being restored. The worst possible thing happened in late May: for the first time in the Lavra’s history there was a large cave-in in the Near Caves, when many cubic meters of soil with human bones and remains of the cultural stratum filled up some passages. If the Lavra question is raised at the top executive level of UNESCO, St. Sophia Cathedral will be automatically removed from the list because the two monuments are recorded under the same number, leaving only the historical center of Lviv, Ukraine’s third item on the UNESCO list. International organizations already have questions about Lviv: for example, a new building of a respected Ukrainian bank, widely considered to be an eyesore, has cropped up among the old architecture, right behind the Adam Mickiewicz monument.
Architects only have one answer to the question “Why?” Modern construction is brazenly overtaking Kyiv’s historic center. Let’s not forget the scandalous construction of a twenty-story building on Hrushevsky Street. The point is not that it is located on the edge of the Kyiv ridge, which many experts think is “movable” and can “drift” at any moment: they say it is dangerous to place such a heavy weight there. The fact that the client lost no time in putting up the framework before the government’s experts had even decided on the number of stories in this building (revealed by the city’s chief architect) is not the point here. Once this structure was built, the Lavra ceased to dominate the landscape. The real point is that this is being done within the limits of a legally protected conservation area.
A project was considered to erect a residential high-rise on Lavrska Lane abutting the Lavra walls. Housing construction is in full swing in Staronavodnytska Gulley. There is also a project slated for Petrovska Alley, which, according to the architects, would form a “harmonious” tandem with the building on Hrushevsky St. Many hoped that the implementation of Detailed Planning Reports (DPR) for each of Kyiv’s districts would help curb the appetites of investors (as well as some architects) and build up this part of the old city (if a decision is made to this effect) in a way that best suits the capital. Experts used to say that DPRs would be a top priority after the implementation of the General City Development Plan: they detail what, where, and how to build, including even the number of stories. But according to Mykola Parkhomenko, first deputy chairman of the All-Ukrainian Association for the Protection of Monuments, there are already some alarming signals. For example, the DPR for Pechersk has plans to develop the Dnipro Embankment. Naturally, not all projects are alike. Still, many believe that what we are being offered will make us forget about the riverside panorama altogether.
Construction around the Lavra is not the only problem. Another is the unresolved status of the preserve. Officially, the Lavra is part of the Ministry for Culture and Tourism’s domain. However, its director says that 144 structures on its territory are municipal property. Decisions on the use of the Lavra’s premises are made by both authorities, which are often at odds with each other. The status of a national monument must place certain restrictions on all users. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Mr. Krolevets gives an illustrative example: the users of many premises rented by the Ministry of Culture have nothing to do with the Lavra itself, for instance, dance classes or a dormitory for the ministry’s female employees.
The director has another complaint. “I am aware that strict control over the funds earmarked for architectural monuments results from the fear that they can be misused,” he says. However, the current procedure for transferring funds via the State Treasury does not allow for optimal decisions. In other words, if there is a cave-in somewhere, it is possible to invite subcontractors but it is impossible to pay them for the work done or to purchase the tools they need. The reason is that if you want to make a payment, you have to introduce changes to the approved annual plan.
The preserve requested 5 million hryvnias to offset capital goods costs but received only 80,000. It was also denied 2.5 million hryvnias for current repairs and only given 900,000 to settle its old debts. Depreciation deduction standards also govern ordinary structures. “What about architectural monuments? Apart from being of venerable age, they are now facing the problem of having new buildings in the vicinity,” said the director, returning to the first topic.
The Lavra preserve has now applied for money from the reserve fund. But in this case, too, there is a special procedure. “There will be no quick reaction,” Mr. Krolovets says, “but what are we supposed to do now?”
INCIDENTALLY
The Kyiv authorities cannot financially support the Lavra because it is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Culture and Tourism of Ukraine, Kyiv’s mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko said. “The Budget Code forbids financing from a municipal budget even if there is such an opportunity,” he told journalists, commenting on the report about the collapse in the Lavra’s Near Caves.
The mayor recalled that “the museum and the preserve, with all its valuables, were withdrawn from Kyiv’s municipal ownership and transferred to the Ministry for Culture and Arts” 18 months ago by a cabinet resolution. This is why the ministry is supposed to allocate funds for maintaining the Kyivan Cave Monastery, he noted. “The city is not in a position to carry out one-time work in the event of an accident: the Budget Code forbids funding it from the municipal budget,” he emphasized.
