Euro 2012: the last chance

Experts estimate that only 30 percent of the preparations for the European soccer finals scheduled for 2012 in Ukraine and Poland are sports-related. The other 70 percent of the work is aimed at qualitatively changing the infrastructures of the two neighboring countries.

Euro 2012 requires not only quality roads and hotels but also an upgraded tourist infrastructure. This European sports event is an impetus to adopting a new view on the order of things in our country.

The events that are taking place in Europe today are spurring confidence that the opportunity for the mutual integration of Ukraine and Poland, which will be realized during the stage of preparing for Euro 2012, will make it possible to apply the experience of international experts to our country’s development. When the current hosts of Euro 2008, Austria and Switzerland, were preparing for this spectacular event, they proceeded from the assumption that after the championships their residents and visitors will continue to benefit from the renovated infrastructure.

The experience of previous championships shows that the site and city are all-important. It is a chance for the self-identification of the city and the country in general. Official trademarks depicting the most characteristic architectural monuments were designed for each of the eight cities in Austria and Switzerland where the games will take place. These symbols, plus a 20-second commercial about each city, will be screened before the matches and seen by more than eight billion television viewers. Given the current growth rate of tourism — the World Tourism Organization’s statistics point to a six percent increase in Europe in 2007, with the number of tourists expected to double by 2020 — and the anticipated influx of tourists into the developing Eastern European countries, such world- class events as Euro 2012 will give an additional impetus to tourism.

The cities that are hosting the Euro 2012 games must have something to show to the fans besides stadiums and shopping centers. These are architectural monuments, museums, and art galleries, which are part of the urban cultural environment. Various tourist itineraries form the inimitable face of every city, the so- called brand that makes it easily recognizable. The European soccer championships’ brand is trusted by millions of potential tourists. It means advertising the city’s potential to an audience of millions of people, who may well come as tourists after the championships are over, thereby filling the state’s coffers on all levels.

So far what is happening in Kyiv means the destruction of the city’s tourism potential.

This problem is sparking protests from members of the public, who are appalled by the construction project in Landscape Alley, the destruction of structures of the Kyiv Fortress in 2007 and the entrance gate to the lower part of the Kyivan Cave Monastery, and new construction projects underway on the territory of this architectural preserve, which is under UNESCO protection. This is just the tip of the iceberg. To date, the construction of 20 high-rise (24-55-story) towers has been authorized in the historic part of Kyiv. Few can imagine what the city will look like several years from now.

Despite Resolution no. 979 of the Kyiv City State Administration (KMDA) “On the Clarification of the Boundaries of Historical and Cultural Preserves and Protected Areas of Historical and Cultural Monuments in the City of Kyiv,” “Construction Regulations in Kyiv,” and the President’s Edict no. 208/2007 “On Measures to Regulate Construction Projects and the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Areas and Projects in the City of Kyiv,” issued on March 15, 2007 (superseded by Edict no. 723/2007, Aug. 8, 2007), new high-rise structures will soon start being built in the historic part of Kyiv.

For a long time a large part of the ramparts of the Kyiv Fortress was a restricted area housing a military repairs plant and military units. Not surprisingly, few Kyivites have any idea about the scope of this structure. Guidebooks mention the Kosy kaponir (Slanting Caponier), which, together with the restored section of the Fortified Hospital in the vicinity of Lesia Ukrainka Boulevard, constitute only a small part of this fortress, one of Europe’s largest in the 18th and 19th centuries. Kyiv Fortress occupies an area of more than 300 hectares in the very heart of Kyiv.

One of the most complicated problems facing architectural preserves and museums in Kyiv is the lack of clearly and legally defined boundary lines. Under the Soviets, the allocation of construction sites and the attendant legal paperwork were not a topical issue. With the start of land privatization these unresolved issues turned into a huge problem in the sphere of historical monuments protection. Without land title deeds and appropriate entries in the land cadastre it is hard to combat encroachments on valuable real estate. The structures of the Kyiv Fortress are gradually going to wrack and ruin, but most often they are illegally demolished by developers.

The value of the Kyiv Fortress to the state is confirmed by the President’s Edict no. 371/2007 (03.05.07) “On the Issue of the Historical and Architectural Museum ‘Kyiv Fortress.’” One clause concerns the regulation of land tenure on the territory of the fortress, the allocation of land for the museum, and the determination of land tenure boundary lines. The edict concerns the interests of practically all legal entities, owners or tenants on this territory, among them the KMDA, National Kyiv-Pechersk Historical and Cultural Preserve, Hryshko Central Botanical Gardens at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ministry of Defense, Kyiv Fortress Museum, and countless private tenants on the territory of the Kyiv Fortress.

An interesting decision was passed in pursuance of the presidential edict. As of Dec. 20, 2007, the museum has been under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice and financed by the state budget, whereas the land on which the fortress stands — 130 ha in downtown Kyiv — is still municipal property. The issue of private tenants remains unresolved. Despite the preserve’s official status, some tenants have obtained titles to the fortress ramparts. Now this area is being built up and the construction is damaging the ramparts’ structure. The adjoining streets are blocked by barriers, and public land is thus turning into private property.

A graphic example is the submission to the Kyiv City Council of previous design proposals concerning the construction of a 52-story hotel and office complex at 24/16 Rybalska Street in Pechersk district. This construction project is situated precisely where, according to the administration of the Kyiv Fortress Museum, the building of the first military telegraph office in tsarist Russia was demolished on New Year’s Eve 2007. This structure was part of the fortress’s fifth tower. Construction work is underway there now.

Other examples of breaches of previous edicts on the preservation of the fortress and the creation of the Cultural-Artistic and Museum Complex (KMMK) Artistic Arsenal include the decision to lease 7.5 ha at 34 Sichnevoho Povstannia Street to Pidpryiemstvo Kyiv Ltd. for a term of 10 years. This is the site of a former shoe factory located on the grounds of Kyiv Fortress’s citadel. Opposite is the Kyivan Cave Monastery. To the left are the Arsenal Works. The site of the factory complex includes ancient architectural sites: the barracks of the Army Orphans Department and the citadel’s Vasylkivski Gate. Amazingly, the land allocation deed reads that the site will be used for “the construction, operation, and maintenance of a multifunctional public and housing complex with hotel and office facilities, apartment buildings, along with the dismantling of relevant structures and comprehensive improvement of the territory.”

A letter from the mayor of Kyiv, dated June 11, 2007, authorizing land tenure documentation, specifies that this land is allocated subject to the condition that property issues pertaining to an area of 1.0 ha, it being part of a fortification (rampart), are resolved without granting the right to carry out any construction projects, and that the area is to be later permanently transferred to the Kyiv Fortress Museum. The problem seems to be resolved and the rampart has been preserved. However, the 1925 topographical survey of Kyiv shows that the citadel’s rampart formed an almost solid structure and that the bastion that would be razed to the ground in the 1950s, when a factory was being built, occupied an area 2.5 times larger than that mentioned in the letter of authorization. In other words, the slope — all that is left of the mighty rampart and which is unsuitable for a construction site — is being transferred to the museum, while the territory of the bastion, an inalienable component of the citadel, is being used for housing construction projects.

Kyiv has a tourism development program effective until 2010, which was adopted under Resolution no. 210/1229 of the Kyiv City Council (Feb. 12, 2004). This program must include studies, restoration, and tourism adjustments for upgraded sections of the Kyiv Fortress. The terrain, the stellar structure of the ramparts (part of which is already lost), underground structures in the center of Kyiv, and the large size of the fortress make it a unique tourist attraction. New life must be breathed into the fortress. All the prerequisites for this exist: convenient transportation, downtown location, and its shape, which is unique even for Europe. The top priority must be the preservation of the surviving elements of the fortress — a considerable part of it. Among these authentic surviving elements are stone fortifications and earthworks, ramparts reaching to 4 and in some places, over 12 meters in height, round towers, barracks, and caponiers. The lost parts of the fortress, specifically its ramparts, should be restored so that the whole structure can be viewed as an earthen bank. Functional underground structures are required for the development of tourism: information centers, exhibition halls, museums, galleries, cafes, souvenir shops, movie theaters, and parking lots.

Naturally, the surviving ramparts must be the heart of the complex, with the contours and grass surface of new structures built in place of the ruined bastions merging with their historical prototypes. With the help of cutting-edge construction technologies energy-saving “green structures,” with their low level of impact on the environment, can be created. The implementation of such projects in Kyiv would give our architecture a new quality. A powerful tourism complex should be built in the center of Kyiv, around the existing monuments that are listed as UNESCO World Heritage sites.

According to the administration of the National Kyiv-Pechersk Historical and Cultural Preserve, the annual proceeds from sales of tickets to the Upper Caves reach some five million hryvnias, a paltry sum compared to how much tourists spend in Kyiv. Hotel, meals, entertainment, and shopping surpass the price of an admission ticket many times over.

A comprehensive national program can regulate this unsystematic construction process by giving priority to the tourist itinerary on the Dnipro slopes, from ancient Podil through the Kyivan Cave Monastery and the Central Botanical Gardens, to Lisohirsky Fort, the monastery in Kytaiv, and the Museum of Folk Architecture and Daily Life (village of Pyrohove). Parts of the Kyiv Fortress (the citadel, Zirynetske fortification) located along this itinerary are completely or partially unavailable as important heritage sites, but they have tourism and recreational potential.

Today the city has no special organization that is capable of assuming responsibility for developing and controlling this program, which Kyiv needs so badly. Finding a government official capable of heading and constantly driving this process is an acute problem. Individual attempts by enthusiasts to preserve the historical heritage are ineffective. The only way to attract attention to the pressing problem of construction projects that are taking place in the historic part of Kyiv is to adopt measures that verge on extremism, like brawls with developers’ construction teams, the creation of tent cities, pickets, and hunger strikes. Decisive legislative measures must be adopted to prevent the territory of the fortress from being handed out as housing and office construction sites. There is a crying need for a tourism model that is more effective for the development of the historic city center. It is also important to fill the fortress territory with functional content. This includes a large assortment of services and a well-planned and careful attitude to authentic heritage sites, so as to avoid an excessive concentration of visitors to historical sites that are subject to special protection procedures.

Given a balanced organization of transport links with large elements of the Kyiv Fortress, the problem of the functioning of Ukraine’s largest museum, Artistic Arsenal, on the grounds of the citadel of the Kyiv- Pechersk Fortress and its impact on the Kyivan Cave Monastery can be solved. The inclusion of these projects in the overall city transit tourist itinerary will solve the problem of excessive concentration of visitors to the UNESCO-protected architectural preserve.

The kind of impetus that Euro 2012 will provide in terms of the development of urban tourism will help us understand prospects for investments: not in the construction of high-rise apartment buildings in the overburdened downtown center, but in sharing the experience of European capitals, such as Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Rome, Amsterdam, and Paris, where new buildings are put up while the downtown area is preserved for tourists. This is the source of a stable influx of tourists and revenues for all levels of budgets.

In addition, many investors today are not sure that all the elements of the hotel infrastructure will keep functioning normally after Euro 2012. This is understandable. The city’s tourism potential is being ruined, with large commercial office and housing construction projects filling the historic quarters. One such presumably profitable project is the construction of a 20-story building near the Kyivan Cave Monastery, from where people can view the national monument from a great height.

As for the seemingly objective desire to turn the dilapidated fortress adjoining the monastery into a tourist attraction, an area of the tourism infrastructure, it has been condemned as lacking prospects. It is simpler to forget all about it and use the area for housing construction. Naturally, no tourist will be interested in seeing a high-rise apartment building with special Dumpster sites and a parking lot. The tourism potential of this territory will be exhausted. Observing the law on architectural preserves, drafting a national program aimed at preserving Kyiv’s heritage, and making the city attractive to tourists are all urgent issues.