Kyiv is losing its civilization identity

Two weeks ago three buildings were pulled down on Andriivsky Uzviz Street. None of them presented any historical value, according to the assurances by the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine and the company which had rented the buildings. “In connection with the information concerning the demolition of three historical buildings on Andriivsky Uzviz in course of implementation of the construction project at the premises of the former Yunist factory, we believe it necessary to make a statement about this information being incorrect,” said ESTA holding company. They emphasized that they were engaged in dismantling of the former Yunist factory buildings, including those which were dangerous. Meanwhile, closer to Andriivsky Uzviz a facade building was demolished, at 9/11 Frolivska Street. “Not a single historical building, listed as protected by state, was destroyed. What was actually brought down was a building of 1978, a Soviet-time construction, which belonged to Yunist factory,” assured Minister of Culture Mykhailo Kulyniak in his recent conversation with journalists. However, a special ministerial commission was created anyway, to make sure the situation does not get out of hand. “I want to ascertain you that we have not taken a single historical site off the register,” announced the minister.

This problem has got quite a history. In July 2005 the Kyiv City Council decided to lease a site at 9/11 Frolivska Street, adjacent to Andriivsky Uzviz, for five years to the LLC Andriivsky Plaza, property of ESTA Holding Company which is part of Rinat Akhmetov’s SCM Group.

Last year a decision was taken to prolong the lease of the site with the total area of 0.98 hectares for another 15 years. The lessee undertook to build a state of the art commercial and office center on the site, with a 10-storeyed hotel complete with stores and a car parking lot with a capacity of almost 500 vehicles.

The Kyiv City State Administration says they are outraged by what has been going on in Andriivsky Uzviz, therefore, according to mayor Oleksandr Popov, they are going to appeal to the Cabinet of Ministers to “restore all authority concerning urban development to the city government.”

Meanwhile, Yakiv Dekhtiar, deputy director of the Chief Department for Cultural Heritage at the Kyiv City State Administration, described the demolished buildings as “ugly constructions.” Oleksandr Anisimov, expert on Kyiv’s local history, added that only six buildings in Andriivsky Uzviz are listed as historical heritage, and the demolished ones were not included in the list.

Nevertheless, the public are indignant at the developer’s activities, and even more so, by the declarations of the local authorities. On the photos, circulated in the Internet, one can clearly see that it was nothing else but an architectural monument that was actually demolished: a house opposite the Bulgakov Museum, at 10A. That an old and valuable building was destroyed, The Day was also informed by the employees of another historical site in Andriivsky Uzviz. They confirmed this information, but preferred to remain anonymous. And there also is one more important thing: it looks like the Kyiv researchers, responsible for Kyiv cultural heritage, will not offer any comment, unauthorized by “the big bosses.” Yet they cannot but realize what is actually going on, and what consequences it can entail. But before confronting them with the question if they are actually prepared to share the responsibility with the “barbarian regime” for what is being done to Kyiv, we must understand why these people fail to display intellectual courage. The answer is very simple: because the Ministry of Culture, just like in Soviet time, performs punitive functions, as it serves the government machine (in this case, the interests of a certain party). Therefore researchers, employed by this machine, are nothing but serfs. Naturally, they fear repressions.

The events in Andriivsky Uzviz ignited public discontent. Protest activists dumped construction rubbish in front of the lessee company’s office in Desiatynna Street. Journalist Yehor Soboliev wrote in his blog in Ukrainska Pravda that on Easter eve, a large-scale protest action is to be held in Kyiv.

Remarkably, the citizens of Donetsk also decided to support Kyivites and stand up for the intact historical appearance of one of the capital’s oldest streets. Meanwhile, Akhmetov’s company says they have nothing to do with the construction of the new business center in Andriivsky Uzviz, and that they warned the Kyiv authorities a month ago, asking them for another site in Kyiv, which would be better for the construction of the business center. “We have taken a principled decision to give up the construction of the business center in Frolivska Street. Instead, we suggested building a low-rise art facility on the premises of the former Yunist factory, completely in tune with the spirit of Andriivsky Uzviz,” said Mykola Nesterenko, CEO, ESTA Holding Company. “We are prepared to present the design of such an art facility for an all-round debate within the next month. After completing the construction, we are ready to hand over this facility to the city’s civic and artists’ organizations.” Time will show what will come of it.

The destruction of Kyiv’s cityscapes, the few well-preserved streets and buildings of the old city is also an assault on identity. This can be described as nothing but a “deprivation of our ID in the human civilization,” said Larysa Ivshyna. What kind of 1,160-year-old statehood are we talking about if it fails to preserve the traces of its presence on its own land?

We discussed the problem in a brief interview with Dmytro STEPOVYK, Ph.D., Doctor of Art History, Doctor of Theology, professor, member of Academic Board of the Sophia of Kyiv National Preserve.

“The destruction of the historical part of Kyiv is certainly a real jeopardy, since it is a matter of the city’s historical memory. We know the classical example of how scrupulously Warsaw’s old style was reconstructed after the city was laid waste in the World War II. Even little two-storied houses were rebuilt, especially if they were associated with some outstanding persons. Even those buildings were reconstructed which were not known for remarkable architectural beauty, but blended well in the city’s background. When, say, in Paris a house is destroyed, which has no architectural value, it is not much of a tragedy (although it certainly is a loss). But in a city like ours, the destruction of any well-preserved old building is a disaster. Each such building, regardless of its architectural beauty, is of great value.

“We have said multiple times that nothing must be destroyed on Andriivsky Uzviz, since this street lies between two historical hills, – St. Andrew’s Hill, where a masterpiece of the world architecture is situated – St. Andrew’s Church and Prince Volodymyr’s Dytynets (fortification). Even the relief is of colossal value, let alone the architecture. Thus, the activities which are currently unfolding there, verge on crime. The incumbent chief architect pays a lip service to the city, pretending to defend its architecture, but in fact I think he leases or sells it (this has to be investigated), because you may not even move a brick in this historical part of the capital without his permission. Which means that he is perfectly aware of everything that is going on.”

You compared our capital and Warsaw, which indeed lay in ruins (80 percent of the city was destroyed), but was rebuilt later. Yet what makes our situation paradoxical is that it is not a matter of war and occupation. This is peace time, and there are no “bad guys” ravaging the city. What do you think of this?

“We have numerous inner occupants; we have always had plenty of them. And as one of our leaders said, Ukraine always swarmed with traitors, haters of everything national and local, of everything associated with Ukrainian ethnicity. Yes, decisions are made by locals – but do they have an adequate cultural background? They may think they belong to elite, but in reality, they are a poor excuse for elite.

“All this also raises a question of the Society for Preservation of Historical and Cultural Sites. I think it has transformed into something quite opposite. Suffice it to cite one example: the eviction of the Zabolotny Library, which comprises unique editions, in particular, those on art history. In Soviet time, Ukrainian literature was burnt at the Vernadsky Library. Now they are openly, publicly destroying everything including architecture.

“This is a stain not only on our city’s authorities, but on the entire government, since something like this is actually going on all over Ukraine.”

What consequences can this barbarity have? This is a blow dealt to Ukraine’s image, moreover, to our self-identification.

“It certainly is. The destroyed houses may even be overwhelmed by the blow to the country’s image, which will be dealt after their demolition. Today, hardly anything can be done in secrecy. Truth will out. Thanks to our journalists, who are following and covering such themes.

“Ukraine only has two UNESCO world heritage sites, both in Kyiv: St. Sophia and the Kyiv Cave Monastery. And look at all the fuss around these two monuments! We keep getting signals from Paris, from UNESCO, that they can be deprived of this status. Whereas countries like Mexico or Thailand have 30 to 40 UNESCO world heritage sites, Ukraine, Europe’s geographical center, has only two. Moreover, even they are constantly jeopardized.

“Another big problem is that our science has lost respect and authority, with scholars themselves compromising it at every step, while the champions of our historical heritage are ignored. It is high time to change the top management of the Society for Preservation of Historical and Cultural Sites, since it is these people who initiate demolitions and new development.”