What kind of urban environment do Kyivans want?
Prybieh: A city is an organism whose evolution cannot be halted. It has historical roots and must partake of modern realities. Kyiv has numerous historical architectural sites, and all the past strata have merged into a single organism and entered the present day. Man’s requirements on the environment in terms of comfort and aesthetics requires change with time, as does our attitude toward architectural style. Not so long ago we said that the architecture at the turn of the twentieth century was bourgeois and that it wasn’t even worth being considered. Now we restore and preserve such architectural sites. Aesthetic assessment cannot be stable, because man can objectively evaluate what was built in the past only forty or fifty years later. This span is precisely what makes it possible to ascertain the value of structures and grant them the status of monuments so they can be preserved for posterity, to acknowledge their importance in the development of architecture, art, and society.
The Day: Of course, it is impossible to preserve everything created by man. New structures are erected among the old. Is it necessary to reproduce the old style or maybe there is a different approach?
Prybieh: Modern structures should be linked to past plasticity only by association; they must reflect modern architectural trends. Every epoch speaks its own language, so modern architecture cannot be sham, an improvisation on an old motif. If modern planning is to be done in a historic environment, beside structures having historical and cultural value, the new structures must conform to the scope of the old ones. I mean the parameters of the new projects. They must answer those forms and that medium that already exist; they must not strike a discordant note. The Hungarian Embassy on Reitarska Street can serve as an example of of aptly combining elements of the past and present. The building dates from the 1970s. Unfortunately, St. Sophia Square testifies to the contrary. They are building the Intercontinental Hotel a short walk from St. Sophia. Originally planned for sixteen stories, it was then decided to reduce it to ten. Still the new project overshadows the cathedral and, of course, causes architectural disharmony. St. Sophia must dominate the square as a site of tremendous historic value. By the way, the cathedral and the rest of the St. Sophia Preserve are on the World Heritage List. Such structures cannot be ignored and we have no right to risk them. Too bad there are people who just don’t understand this. There is a building on Volodymyrska St. with a large underground parking lot. That’s dangerous for the historical preserve and I’ve broached the subject. As for the Intercontinental Hotel, the site was visited by World Heritage experts and they stressed the need to practice a tolerant approach to structures of historical value, that new construction projects should be more balanced. In fact, only three Ukrainian sites are on the World Heritage List: the St. Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv-Pecherska Lavra Monastery of the Caves, and Lviv downtown (the lists numbers 690 items, including the Egyptian pyramids , Parthenon, Coliseum, Roman Forum, Venice, Florence, etc.).
The Day: What is your expert opinion of the new structures on Independence Square?
Prybieh: What’s happening downtown is an uncontrolled process. Even though a lot of attention is being paid to Independence Square, I think that the government square should be better organized aesthetically; it is overloaded. As they say in Ukraine, you don’t put all the cheese in one dumpling. The square has an eclectic solution. It is hard to understand during which historical period it was organized or what centuries its monuments belong to. The surrounding buildings apparently date from the 1950s, but all the rest does not conform to the current reality; it’s all in the recent past. The government square should look solemn, while what we have is divided into just so many small parts. Architecturally speaking, it’s simply fragmented.
Take the Independence Memorial. Columns are found in many squares throughout the world, but in every case they carry a certain idea. The one by St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome is in the center of a round square, compositionally holding the place together. The key monument on Independence Square in Kyiv does not conform to the laws of architecture. The column should have a firm pedestal and not stand on lesser columns; it chould have slim proportions and not look like a post, a column is shaped not with straight lines. To make the sculptural composition look better atop the column, the latter’s capital ought to have had greater dimensions. And the same is true of the head of the statue, for it is viewed from far below and at a certain angle. The whole thing was made in pursuit of the construction project’s rate, which explains its shortcomings.
Restoring historic sites is correct from the standpoint of reviving the environment, but it is important not to get carried away. In some cases it is extremely important to restore lost structures, as was the case with the St. Michael and Dormition cathedrals. Both were barbarously demolished, so their restoration can be regarded as an act of justice. They were built anew not simply because we wanted them but because a certain architectural space had taken shape, a certain structure that lacked certain components that had been destroyed and now had to be revived. To restore the Pecherska Lavra ensemble it was necessary to reinstall the key element that had dominated it, the Dormition Cathedral. The same was true of St. Michael’s. If you look closely at the axis between the St. Sophia and St. Michael cathedrals you will realize that it is a very important element of the city ensemble. Without St. Michael’s the axis simply did not exist.
The Day: What principles are used in the restoration of historical sites?
Prybieh: There is a very simple principle. One takes the old documents, blueprints, and revives forms, lending the structure the shape it had at a certain historical stage. In our case it was the period when the Ukrainian baroque style had finally taken hold. Actually, by the time St. Michael’s was destroyed careful measurements had been made and blueprints drawn. Also there were quite a few photographs dating from the period. In other words, all elements of the structure were factually substantiated. The cathedral was torn down to be replaced by a government square. The first stage of the project in the 1930s was the Foreign Ministry. After the Ukrainian capital was transferred from Kharkiv to Kyiv, St. Sophia Square was meant to become the central square; they even considered demolishing St. Sophia. The Foreign Ministry turned out the only structure designed under the project. They tore down the St. Michael Cathedral to erect a structure identical to the Foreign Ministry, but then the central square concept changed. And the original project was very pompous; they also planned stairs leading all the way down to the Dnipro. Of course, in terms of urban planning, the St. Michael Cathedral had to be restored.
Many such historical sites have been restored all over the world, particularly when the structures were demolished due to some reason or another. Restoring past forms is stressing the significance of a given historical structure. The detached bell tower of Saint Mark’s Cathedral in Venice was rebuilt in exact replica in the early twentieth century. It had fallen down for unknown reasons and without it the ensemble got lost. Today no one seems aware that it’s only a hundred years old. The Old Town of Warsaw, demolished during World War II, was restored as a symbol of the Polish Renascence, and they did a pretty good job. As for Kyiv, we pay too much attention to details. I think they overdecorated St. Michael’s Cathedral in terms of the wall painting, ceramic frieze inserts, etc. That’s the way they did it in the past, but we must understand that by doing restoration work we do not create a monument. The exterior was built in its original shape, the rest – bricks, materials, manpower, and technologies – was modern. I call such restoration building a monument to a monument. The form, plasticity, and adjustments should be quite laconic. We shouldn’t imitate everything, because it will be regarded as a copy, a model at best.
The Day: When do you think historical sites should not be restored at all? Are there any restoration plans being made in Kyiv?
Prybieh: Not all historical structures are worth being restored. For example, the remains of the Golden Gates in Kyiv. The site was authentic, what we had inherited from the distant past, it was a historical document of the ninth century. The way the place was restored is just a hypothesis. They ought to have built a kind of pavilion over the old site to protect it from rain and snow. Actually, a project like that was proposed in 1914. Now we have a hypothetical superstructure as there wasn’t sufficient information to achieve authenticity. It is also very important to take into account the environment that formed on and around the site. The restored structure does not fit into the environment; its bulk dominates the surrounding buildings and distorts our perception of the area. In a way this structure leads us astray, for people believe that what they see is actually what had stood there in the distant past. None of us has seen the real Golden Gates, and there are no sketches or drawings. The way the place was restored was an exercise in understanding.
The current program of the restoration of lost monuments is too large. Restoring everything is impossible, for it takes too much money. Budget money ought to have been spent mostly on keeping historical sites in their authentic state, rather than mass restoration. They are debating rebuilding of the Church of the Tithe. Restoring this site would be perfectly absurd in terms of preserving historical monuments. No one has the slightest idea what the church had actually looked like, and there is no authentic information available. We cannot distort the historical environment by introducing farfetched forms, thus destroying that precious archaeological and cultural stratum; it must be preserved for posterity. With time man will develop new technologies allowing a deeper insight into the past. Also, those in power should pay more attention to what the experts and general public have to say, rather than use restoration projects as tools to serve political or personal ambitions. If we are aware of our roots, we will try not to damage them in the future. It is a way to foster responsibility for one’s family, people, and to think twice before taking steps that can affect the development of history.
