The Fad of Ruling from Palaces

It is common knowledge that the world’s largest art museums are situated in former imperial or royal palaces. This is completely logical. Where else, for example, could works like the beautiful Gioconda (Mona Lisa), be exhibited, if not at the Louvre or the Winter Palace, masterpieces of great architecture that are unique cultural and historical monuments? Government officials usually choose less ostentatious structures in which to conduct their duties. However, an altogether different trend may be observed in Ukraine today.

Klovsky Palace is the same age as Mariinsky Palace. It was designed by the court architect Vasily Neyolov, who also helped build St. Andrew’s Church, as a residence for Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. But whenever she visited Kyiv, the empress preferred to stay at Mariinsky Palace, never gracing Klovsky with her presence. Later, the palace was refurbished several times. Originally a two-story structure, it had a third story built in the 19th century. The palace was badly damaged in the 1930s, but not to the extent that it could no longer be considered a unique architectural monument. Contemporary historical and archival research has unearthed a body of rich material sufficient for carrying out restoration work.

Klovsky Palace now enjoys the status of a nationally important architectural monument. For the past 25 years it has housed the Museum of the History of Kyiv. When the museum moved from these premises, the complex was placed at the disposal of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. According to Tamara Khomenko, the museum’s curator, the decision was already made in May 2003. The Day has already reported that 250,000 museum exhibits are now in storage. The offices in Ukraine House, which were offered as a replacement, are absolutely inadequate for displaying these items. Although the museum is still carrying out research, it is closed to visitors. Ms. Khomenko says that one of the reasons why the building was handed over to a wealthier owner was the allegation that the museum’s personnel were unable to maintain it in good condition. In reality, they all expected the palace to be restored because an expert examination had just been done.

Not long ago the City Construction Council presented a plan to restore Klovsky Palace and adapt it to the functional needs of the Supreme Court; the plan also envisages the construction of a new office complex for the same purpose.

The designers of the project, architects from the Ukrproektrestavratsiya Research Institute, informed the council that in the past two years the client changed his mind about building an underground parking lot and a cafeteria, and he now wants to construct new buildings. The current project was drawn up with due account of the client’s wishes.

The restoration involves the renovation of the facades’ decor, reinforcement of the building’s foundation and girders, and overall re-planning: the spacious halls will be divided up by partitions. There are plans to set up technical services in the basement, a lounge-room and a multifunctional hall on the ground floor, judges’ offices on the first floor, and a reception room, library, and common office rooms on the second.

The new 5-to-6-storey structures will be built behind the palace in the form of a closed square. The architecture of the buildings was presented in several versions: from an ultramodern style with fully glassed-in facades to Greco-Roman with columns and capitals. There will also be an underground parking lot below the entire expanse of the new structures and part of an area next to the palace.

According to Heorhiy Dukhovychny, the official reviewer of the project, the main drawback of the design is that it does not provide for a buffer zone, which makes it impossible to delimit territories, and in fact the palace will fall hostage to the new structures. The most important consideration has been disregarded: no inventory of the monument has been done and no installations slated for protection have been identified. These omissions are reflected in the proposed overall layout of the palace, which will be deprived of the baroque-style enfilade planning: the connecting suites of rooms along a single axis will be broken up. In the reviewer’s opinion, it is necessary to identify buffer zones, delimit the territory, and assess insolation (exposure to sunlight).

But the embarrassing part of this situation is that even though the client is none other than the Supreme Court, the legislative side has voiced a number of serious complaints. Kyiv’s chief governmental expert examiner Anatoliy Karminsky thinks that this facility is completely illegal because the client owns no land. “The two contracts from 1998 and 2004 have nothing to do with reconstruction and new construction,” Mr. Karminsky pointed out. So the client will have to thoroughly check its licenses and construction documentation.

Architect Tetiana Dotsenko noted that the new construction is illegal because it is planned on the territory of the former Klovsky Monastery, an archeological preserve. Any work should be preceded by detailed archeological research, while a two-floor parking lot would destroy the cultural stratum.

Ruslan Kukharenko, chief of Kyiv’s Department for the Protection of Monuments, is convinced that any major repairs are out of the question. Under the law, these kinds of structures can only be restored, rehabilitated, and adapted. But under no circumstances can they be re-planned: this would be tantamount to reconstructing an architectural monument, which the law specifically forbids. Professor Larysa Skoryk of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts bluntly dubbed this project “spiritual kitsch.” “Can one speak of the state’s image if even the ruling authorities permit such things? Everyone wants to rule from palaces. Mariinsky Palace has already been closed to visitors, now it’s the Klovsky Palace’s turn! This simply is not done. This is a grotesque and ludicrous way of approaching Europe. The palace is for the museum, not the Supreme Court,” Ms. Skoryk said.

Viktor Shyriayev is convinced that this situation reflects a conflict of interests between the central and municipal governments, which has been resolved in favor of the former. He says that a government buildings placement program must be formulated. Other members of the City Construction Council support this idea.

The discussion was followed by a decision to carry out the project in compliance with the law. As the palace has already been handed over to the Supreme Court, it should be restored, as befits its status, with buffer zones clearly defined. But, first of all, all project documentation and licenses have to be brought into line with standards.