Deputies of the Kyiv City Council at the first plenary session of the new year decided not to consider the draft resolution “On Certain Measures for the Preservation of Buildings and Structures Built Over 100 Years Ago”
More than half of the total number of deputies voted for yet another postponement of this issue to the next session.
Kashtan NEWS investigated why the elected representatives of Kyiv are blatantly “kicking” an important issue for the city.
The History of the Issue
The draft resolution aims to create a regulatory framework for monitoring work conducted in buildings and structures that are over 100 years old and have not received protective status under the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Cultural Heritage.” Its active discussion began in July 2024 after the scandalous demolition of the Zelensky residence. The troubled project was first fully attempted to be brought to consideration at the end of last year.
However, it is worth noting that the initial draft resolution was developed back in July 2023 — immediately after the developer demolished the 200-year-old residence at 13B Yaroslavska Street. Thus, the document effectively lay “under the cloth” for two years.
1 For various reasons, it was deliberately not brought to the deputies for consideration. And so, at the plenary session that took place before the New Year, it was finally decided to include the issue of protecting 100-year-old buildings in the agenda. However, there immediately appeared “initiatives” from deputies who categorically opposed the further advancement of this project. Consequently, the secretary of the Kyiv City Council announced the postponement of the issue to the next session.
A Convenient “Card”
It has happened that the issue of protecting 100-year-old buildings in Kyiv has fallen into the realm of speculation. During the time elapsed between sessions, individuals close to Mayor Vitaliy Klitschko hastily claimed that the issue had already been worked out, consultations had been held with all factions, and thus the project would be voted on in the session hall as a basis. However, even at the stage of approving the agenda, a proposal was made to remove the draft resolution from the list of session issues entirely. This was justified by the alleged absence of a conclusion from one of the relevant deputy commissions.
2 In this context, Kyiv heritage protector Dmytro Perov pointed out that at the penultimate plenary session of the Kyiv City Council in December of last year, when deputies attempted to bring the issue for consideration, the document lacked signatures of approval from two or even three deputy commissions. However, this did not prevent the draft resolution from being included in the agenda.
It is noteworthy, Perov asserts, that when the city authorities need to urgently adopt some “land” decisions, the projects of which appear literally the day before the vote, such issues are quite often brought for consideration without consultations or approvals from the relevant Kyiv City Council commissions. This is a fairly common practice: to bring decisions for consideration “on the fly.”
Why is This Happening?
According to the interlocutor, the Kyiv authorities lack the political will and interest in preserving and protecting the city’s cultural heritage. The financial feasibility of destroying cultural heritage sites outweighs the political benefits of protecting monuments.
“I believe that both the deputies and the mayor of Kyiv understand the value of historical cultural heritage well. Vitaliy Volodymyrovych himself lives in a building that is a historical monument. I think a person would never live in a place where they felt uncomfortable or uneasy. Thus, our mayor is quite comfortable living in a historical and architectural monument. But for some reason, he is not ready to share this benefit with other Kyiv residents, nor is he willing to sacrifice the interests of his business partners, friends, colleagues, or entourage in order to preserve historical cultural heritage,” Dmytro Perov is convinced.
3 How to Preserve Antiquity
As history has repeatedly shown us, the authorities do not favor publicity. Therefore, the heritage protector is convinced that public attention and pressure are the two main markers that can help in preserving the cultural heritage of the capital.
In fact, Dmytro Perov reflects, when there is a critical mass of people and a critical demand from society for a change in the system, it will begin to gradually change on its own.
It is worth mentioning that after the protests following the demolition of the Zelensky residence, the authorities promised to restore it, and the buildings were indeed granted monument status. Additionally, after protests regarding the incompetence of the Advisory Council under the Department of Cultural Heritage Protection of the Kyiv City State Administration, a decision was made to update this structure, removing those who lobbied for the interests of developers.
4 Ultimately, the political choice of Kyiv residents may also positively influence the course of events. After all, there is again talk of restoring district councils in the capital, which will also affect city and district policies regarding the protection and preservation of cultural heritage.
Well, until such changes take place, it seems that one should not hope for a comprehensive solution to the issue of monument protection.
“I think this issue will remain stagnant until the next historical monument is demolished or burned in the city. It is essential to understand the main point: no public-law issues are brought for consideration in the Kyiv City Council without the agreement of the mayor,” Dmytro Perov noted.
The Project Needs “Refinement”
At the same time, there is somewhat more optimism regarding the prospects for resolving the issue of protecting 100-year-old buildings from Kyiv City Council deputy and head of the permanent commission on budget, socio-economic development, and investment activities Andriy Vitrenko.
“I believe that in order to reach a vote, it is necessary first to clear the Kyiv City Council of all political statements. Why is it that we do not reach this issue? Because the ‘European Solidarity’ faction started spreading nonsense, and then there began political discussions, political statements that are constantly debated, while practical issues are not resolved for the second consecutive session,” Andriy Vitrenko commented on the situation.
5 At the same time, the deputy emphasized that the aforementioned resolution on preserving 100-year-old buildings, which was initially submitted by the Department of Cultural Heritage Protection of the Kyiv City State Administration, was “raw,” and therefore needed further development.
“It was of the lowest quality. We made our proposals for improving this resolution. Therefore, we will be introducing amendments to ensure that this resolution is genuinely workable and effectively protects the buildings. There are some contentious points in the project, such as special control cards. However, such a category is not defined in the legislation at all,” the deputy noted.
Andriy Vitrenko is convinced that the Kyiv City Council should adequately prepare draft resolutions, discuss them with deputies, listen to all “for” and “against,” and create working groups. After all, the draft resolutions brought for consideration in the session must be maximally acceptable to Kyiv residents.
How much time is needed in such a situation to adopt the “100-year” issue?
Andriy Vitrenko is rather optimistic:
“We have a session scheduled for February 20. I think this issue will be on the agenda. We will see if the executive body has heard us and made the necessary adjustments.”
Yevhen DEM’YANOV