Alexander Kumeiko: "Monument status is not a sentence!"

/ The Interview /

The River Station building on Pochtova Square in the capital is coming back to life. Already in 2022, a branch of American University will open there. In the process of restoration, the usable area of ​​the building increased by almost a third, but at the same time, the historical volume of the architectural monument remained the same. At first glance, it sounds unrealistic. But, as explained by Alexander Kumeiko, co-founder and chief architect of Kumeiko Architects and Edelburg Architects studios, such a task just seems unrealistic.

PRAGMATIKA.MEDIA discussed not only the case of River Station, but also the nuances of the restoration process as a whole with the architect, whose portfolio includes more than a dozen successfully implemented restoration and reconstruction projects of historical and socially significant buildings. And also — the perspective of mansard floors and the specifics of a constructive dialogue with the public.

Alexander Kumeiko, chief architect of Kumeiko Architects and Edelburg Architects studios. Photo: Maksym Drobynenko

PRAGMATIKA.MEDIA: You have implemented several large projects related to the restoration and reconstruction of buildings, including objects with protected status. Which of these projects were the most interesting and difficult to implement for you?

Alexander Kumeiko: It is difficult to single out any of them, as each is interesting in its own way. You face the biggest challenges when working with old buildings, created at the turn of the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries, which require a complete replacement of the roof. If you have noticed, rotten, sagging floors and ceilings are the most painful problem of the historical fund. The old ones in Kiev have fairly reliable frames, thick, often multi-chambered walls made of the famous yellow "Kiev" brick, stable foundations, with a margin of strength, but completely unreliable ceilings and partitions.

In old buildings, we always deal with many cultural and household layers of different times, which do not allow us to assess the real state of the building at first glance. When you peel away the layers, sometimes only one skeleton remains, a brick shell. And it looks very sad, frightening, especially for a person who does not understand the essence of the restoration process, but is ready to shout loudly: "Look, they destroyed a historical building!" And in fact, there is a normal recovery process.

The restoration of the River Station building in Kyiv was carried out in accordance with the "protection agreement". Source of images: "Edelburg Architects"

Speaking about the specifics of the old Kyiv buildings, I mean all the buildings, even inhabited and operated ones. In some of them, some repair work was done, the windows were changed, the walls were painted, but all this is cosmetic, which is very far from a full-fledged restoration / reconstruction. One building looks a little better, the neighboring one looks a little worse, but you have to admit that they have the same filling. And there, under the layers of paint and plaster, there is rotten wood and, possibly, emergency floors. If the building is under protection, we do restoration, if the law allows, then of course, the best solution is reconstruction.

In Ukraine, the status of a monument is like a sentence of hopelessness. Everywhere, both developers and architects are devastated that once the building is protected by law, it is hopeless to make plans to use it for a successful business project. This is not so. In fact, the restoration of monuments is a specific process that requires professionalism, but it really makes it possible to bring buildings back to life. The problem is that we do not have so many architects, customers, experts and executors who know how to work with heritage in a quality way, as they do in Europe.

PM: In Europe, it is a completely normal practice to restore the facade, but completely renew the entire filling, replacing the ceilings and communications with modern ones. In this way, objects of historical heritage are treated as well. Why is this an exceptional scenario for us?

A.K.: Not so exceptional. We did practically the same thing during the restoration of the River Station building in Kyiv. The object will live a new life - with new communications, a reliable roof, and a reinforced frame. Everything is new, everything meets modern safety and energy efficiency requirements. But at the same time, we preserved the architectural monument, all its visual characteristics and key elements, and analyzed all the historically valuable transformations.

Each monument of architecture has, or rather should have, its own "protection agreement" and monument passport. These are documents that clearly indicate the parts and elements of the building that are under protection, as well as the criteria for their protection, the periods of repairs (restoration), etc.

Restoration with adaptation to modern requirements is primarily a business process, the purpose of which is to preserve the object of cultural heritage and implement a successful business case

First, the town-planning value of the River Station building is its location on the square and its relationship with surrounding objects. Secondly, the volume of the building itself, its external parameters, all monumental pictorial elements — both on the facade and in the interiors — are protected. Everyone followed the process of conservation of mosaic panels, and at this stage of the work, people could freely visit the object, art exhibitions and other cultural mass events were held there. The process was as open as possible.

The very structure of the load-bearing structure, the pattern of filling window and external door openings is also protected. There are also fences and a central staircase. And we completely restored all this. Also, the drawing of the metal fence on the roof was accurately restored. Perhaps, I would like to make a modern note by replacing this fence with transparent glass, but the security agreement excludes this. Therefore, we studied the old drawing of the fence and recreated it in its original form.

PM: How, within the strict framework of restoration, did you manage to increase the functional area of ​​the River Station building by more than 2 square meters? sq. m?

A.K.: Partly thanks to the unique features of the building itself. It was built in such a way that the foundations are five meters below the first floor. I think this is due to hydrogeological aspects and the lack of technologies of that time to overcome the difficulties with the operation of these premises. And these five meters were simply covered with sand, pieces of concrete, and construction debris.

You understand that for any business project, the opportunity to get additional space is very important. And restoration with adaptation to modern requirements is, first of all, a business process, the purpose of which is to preserve the object of cultural heritage, breathe new function and life into it, and realize an economically successful business case. Therefore, when we saw the basement, studied the old drawings, realized that we have a real chance to get additional space.

Restoration of the River Station building in Kyiv, project and implementation. Design under the supervision of chief architect Alexander Kumeiko.
Source of images: "Edelburg Architects"

Restoration of the River Station building in Kyiv, project and implementation. Design under the supervision of chief architect Alexander Kumeiko.
Source of images: "Edelburg Architects"

In addition to the basement, we discovered another reserve of space - the upper technical floor. We went up to look and saw a space with an area of ​​1200 m! It looked, of course, not very aesthetically pleasing: everything was in garbage and in the waste of the vital activity of birds. The main problem was the insufficient height of the ceilings - only 1,95 m. It seems as if the crazy square "walks", but it is impossible to use it. We decided to study the possibility of somehow raising the ceiling. It is impossible to add anything, it is forbidden to change the configuration of the volume of the building.

But we found a way out of the situation. The roof was a monolithic structure with long beams and ceilings poured over them. When we made dimensional drawings, it turned out that the thickness of the roof pie is almost 90 cm. Apparently, when the roof of the station was repaired, the builders simply added layers of roofing material there - layer by layer. And the high parapet covered all the layers, which over time acquired threatening thickness and weight.

We worked on the issue of replacing this thick sandwich with a thin, energy-efficient ceiling on metal beams. A profile sheet plus a thin screed is about 15 cm in total. In parallel, they worked on the issue of using modern insulation, since increasing the energy efficiency of the building is an integral task of any project.

And as a result, an insulated roof appeared that met all the requirements for the coefficient of heat transfer resistance. Replacing the roof allowed us to "take the height" - to raise the ceilings to 2,5 m. This is the minimally comfortable room height for a person. Thus, instead of five working levels, we have seven.

PM: The purpose of the object's commercial use has changed: at first, they wanted to place a food zone with a co-working space in the River Station, and an hour ago it turned out that a university, or rather, a branch of the American University, will be located in the building. Did this require a certain design balance? In principle, how suitable is the building for university accommodation?

A.K.: Although the replacement of the target was a surprise, everything turned out very well in the end. Yes, at first it was assumed that the River Station building would be adapted to accommodate food courts and co-working spaces. We planned to use the space of the basement and the first floor to accommodate food courts with common halls. This typology is already well known to everyone, for example Kyiv Food Market or Odesa Food Market.

The idea was dictated by the fact that virtually the entire area of ​​the Dnieper embankment in the area of ​​Pochtova Square is occupied by food courts based on temporary structures for the implementation of entrepreneurial activities. And if all this history is transferred inside the building, then it is possible: firstly, to free up the pedestrian zone, and secondly, to make this business all-season and all-weather.

Reconstruction of the building "Houses with photographs" in Kyiv with the arrangement of the attic. Design under the supervision of chief architect Alexander Kumeiko. Source of images: "Edelburg Architects"

But at some point, the prospect of university accommodation appeared. An educational cluster has already formed in Podol, and the new university fits perfectly into the general structure of the region. When we calculated the possibility of distributing the auditoriums and seating inside the building, it turned out that everything was suitable. In the building there are spaces of different sizes, including quite large ones - 170 square meters each. m, which is ideal for the audience. So the new goal fit perfectly organically, effortlessly into this object.

From the point of view of transport logistics, everything turned out even better. The food court is aimed not only at nearby customers, but also at visiting customers, so the parking lot should be located in front of the facility so that the driver who has the idea of ​​stopping by for lunch or dinner can immediately see the parking lot. This, by the way, is true for almost all HoReCa and retail facilities.

In our case, the parking lot is located behind the River Station building. For an educational facility, the principle of parking can be as follows. The small size of the parking lot is also not a problem, given the close proximity of the metro. Thus, the placement of the parking lot does not block the view points and fronts of the perception of the cultural heritage object, which, in turn, was of great importance to us as designers.

PM: You managed to preserve the original volume of the building. Wasn't there still a temptation to experiment?

A.K.: I will emphasize an important point - we did not just "experiment with the volume", we did not even have the right to think about it. And our case is an ideal example of the fact that it is not necessary to complete something, build several floors above. It is possible to give a building a new life, simply by competently redistributing the space while preserving the historical volumes.

The transformation of attics into usable attics allows you to get thousands of functional square meters of space in the historic part of the city, without sacrificing cultural heritage

Someone will say now: "You had the opportunity to add two floors! But usually this opportunity is not available!" But in fact, the entire historical center of Kyiv is a real Klondike with a huge reserve of space. In many apartments, attic spaces reach one and a half - two floors in height! This is a unique opportunity to equip residential attics like in Bruges, Strasbourg or Paris.

PM: In your practice, there was a reconstruction of a building at Yaroslavov Val, 15. This is what the residents used to call "The House with Photographs", since old photographs were placed on the end in the window openings. And just there, a new volume appeared on the roof - an attic...

A.K.: First of all, the "House with Photographs" differs from the River Station in that it is not a protected monument. We found this out at the very first stage, before starting the design. But since the building is located in a historical environment and, of course, is interconnected with the entire architecture of the Golden Gate, it must be subordinated to the cultural heritage, while preserving its primacy of perception.

Therefore, in principle, we did not raise the height mark - along the ridge of the roof, it remained the same. In this case, we had the opportunity to reconstruct the roof. The earlier building had a tented roof that reached almost 5 m in height. The design was initially problematic — the wide eaves collected rainwater, and something had to be done about it.

After our intervention, the attic space, which was not used in any way, acquired functional orthogonal proportions. An open terrace with a view of Yaroslavov Val appeared. At the same time, the view of the building remained the same for passers-by walking down the street. They simply do not see this attic from the perspective of pedestrians.

Alexander Kumeiko, chief architect of Kumeiko Architects and Edelburg Architects studios. Photo: Maksym Drobynenko

By the way, if you are passing through Podol or Old Kyiv, pay attention to the roofs. You will find a reserve of squares that are not used in any way today. The conversion of attics into usable attics allows you to get thousands of functional square meters of space in the historic part of the city, without sacrificing height, facades, or the historical environment in general and the perception of cultural heritage in particular.

And what kind of apartments can be made in these attics! This is just a restorer's dream! Undoubtedly, an examination of foundations and load-bearing structures, engineering networks and communications is necessary - are they able to withstand the load, are they subject to replacement or strengthening.

PM: Are they capable?

A.K.: We worked with attics not only on Yaroslavovo Val, but also on other objects. They redid the roof, including multi-apartment residential buildings, where the tenants decided on the level of condominiums the issue of reconstruction / restoration with the adaptation of the attic to equip the attic. And judging by our experience, networks designed decades ago were calculated with a sufficient margin and can easily withstand one more residential floor. Especially if we replace all the engineering with energy-efficient and modern ones, as we did during the restoration of the River Station. But, of course, each case requires an individual approach.

PM: The former estate of the Sykorsky family, where the Ukrainian aircraft designer Igor Sykorsky grew up, is adjacent to the building at Yaroslavov Val, 15. But she is in an extremely deplorable state. What do you see as the reason for this?

A.K.: The main reason that a building with history, located in such an attractive place, is in such a deplorable state is the lack of desire of the owner (and, possibly, funding, since it is on the balance sheet of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine) to restore such an object. This clearly will not solve the problem of housing for military personnel.

Competition project for the reconstruction of the "Children's World" building in Kyiv by "Edelburg Architects" with facades by Dmytro Aranchii Architects. Source of images: "Edelburg Architects"

It is possible that if this object were handed over to the city for management, the restoration process would move from a standstill due to financing from the budget of the city of Kyiv (there are a lot of successful examples), and we would have the opportunity to see the monument in its restored form. guests of the capital.

But the trouble is that the officials of the central apparatus of power lack the political will and understanding that this issue needs an urgent solution. In the immediate future, because if emergency measures are not taken now, then this building will also be lost in Kyiv. And, of course, it is necessary to specify the function. What will there be: a museum and public spaces? Discussions on social networks will not replace real actions and public hearings conducted in accordance with the legislation.

PM: In Ukraine, there are not so many architects who know how to work within the strict framework of the legislation on the protection of historical heritage. And there are two ways: to raise the level of designers, or to liberalize the legislation, to make it more loyal to issues of interference in the historical heritage. Which way do you think is the right way?

A.K.: I believe that our legislation is absolutely not focused on investment in the field of cultural heritage protection, and instead of clearly limiting the possibility of intervention, it requires a complete ban on any changes and works only as a factor of deterrence and punishment. Modern standards of sanitation and safety of operation are directly contradicted by the DBN on restoration, and vice versa. Of course, by giving the building a new modern function, it is necessary to ensure operational safety, inclusiveness, energy efficiency, etc.

The architect-restorer must initially assess the wishes of the investor, compare them with the legal framework and give appropriate recommendations. The recommendations of UNESCO and other authoritative world organizations in the field of cultural heritage protection should not only be ratified, but also implemented in our legislation. Otherwise, the currently existing situation, which puts the legality of decisions made by officials, architects and investors on the brink, leads to the emergence of conflict situations in society.

Konstantin Kovshevatsky, editor-in-chief of PRAGMATIKA. MEDIA and Alexander Kumeiko, chief architect of Kumeiko Architects and Edelburg Architects studios.
Photo: Maksym Drobynenko

To my deepest regret, this harms the very objects of cultural heritage. Because investors are afraid to invest in the restoration of our beautiful buildings, constructed and given new functions. There are no ways and methods, programs of stimulation, popularization at all. As there are no preferential rental rates for land or premises for an investor, a state or city program for the restoration of residential facades built for condominiums, and at least elementary restoration of forging and individual architectural elements. Nothing at all!

We cannot come to an old castle and say: "yes, our energy efficiency standards have changed, let's close the openings, insulate the walls with foam plastic and replace all the windows." In practice, such incidents happen quite often. Specialists who are engaged in the protection of heritage know about such conflicts, and they know about it in the organizations that issue the permit documentation. In each similar case, the question is considered individually. But since there is no single logic of solutions, it's like roulette every time.

As for the lack of experience among architects, I believe that practical experience is much more important than theory. But how do you get it if the restoration orders are one-off? In order for there to be more such projects, customers should appear who are ready to work within the framework of the law now, and not wait until the building collapses. The customer of the restoration of the River Station was initially determined to fully comply with the requirements of the security agreement and the passport of the monument. Do not imitate its observance, but clearly and honestly observe the letter of the law.

We are very lucky, it is wonderful when a person approaches responsibly and consciously perceives the words of an architect-restorer about what can and cannot be done. Such an approach must be popularized at the state level. Or to stimulate, as they do in European developed countries, where castles and palaces are sold for pennies against the obligation to restore them. I am sure that we also have people who want to restore old buildings and have the financial means to do so. They just need clear and understandable rules of the game.

PM: As for the lack of a unified decision logic in the permitting authorities, why not develop a model for solving this issue at least at the level of the Union of Architects? In the architectural community, too, there is no consensus on the limits of what is allowed in dealing with heritage objects?

A.K.: Discussions are being held, but we have separate discussions among architects, and separate decisions by legislators. And those who develop laws do not always look at the situation from the position of architects. And as the recent events show, in order for the architects' opinion to be paid attention to, in principle, it is necessary to resort to revolutionary actions.

PM: There is also the "street factor", public opinion. Public resonance — is it good or bad, good or bad?

A.K.: I think that all architects involved in urban planning have repeatedly felt the influence of public opinion. This has its pros and cons. The downside is the risks of using the current situation for the benefit of one or another political force (power / opposition), and the fact that someone's business interests are often traced behind the voices of the public. We realize that without public discussions neither a democratic society nor organic development of the urban environment will be formed.

In all cities of the world there are activists who express public opinion, including in the form of street protests, Ukraine is not unique in this. This is a sign that the society is democratic, freedom-loving, and thinks freely. But what should parties be ready for? To constructive criticism, to evidential arguments. Any step must be supported and justified by regulations, laws, and context. And not based on taste, personal opinion and the strength of the vocal cords.

The competition project for the reconstruction of the "Children's World" building in Kyiv by "Edelburg Architects" provided for the construction of a new volume, expanding the commercial area.
Image Source:
"Edelburg Architects"

For example, people spoke about the reconstruction project of the "Children's World" building in Darnytsia, which we developed for Edelburg Development. "We don't like the multi-colored facade of "Children's world!" - residents said. We reacted to the feedback like lightning, and immediately entered into a dialogue with everyone, both activists and deputies. The misunderstanding was that the activists assumed that we planned to replace the facade of the original building with colored panels, while in fact it was a sketch of a new volume, an expansion.

But we cannot discuss on the principle of "who will shout over whom". Therefore, the customer followed the path of reasonable dialogue: held a competition, the Chamber of Architecture determined the winner. But you know what struck me personally? Despite the fact that the discussion was so hot and loud, 22 applications for participation were submitted to the competition. At the same time, only 5 works were submitted! As a result, the jury chose only five projects. And dozens of activists simply disappeared, including architects who were so worried.

Why didn't they submit projects? If the fate of the object is so important to you, it is necessary to submit your vision of the projected object. This did not require, according to the terms of the competition, either complex modeling or the creation of complex visualizations. It was enough to create a sketch. And he declared his position, presented his point of view professionally, not verbally. Another strangeness is the refusal of the author of the project to cooperate and participate in the competition as a member of the jury.

The decision of Vladimir Zalutsky remained incomprehensible to me: he initially spoke in support of the reconstruction project, withdrew himself at the time of the competition, rejected the offer to become a professional arbiter in this architectural competition. It seems to me that when it comes to a socially significant object, personal ambitions and both should be recognized as secondary, those that, instead of bringing resonance to the situation, serve the benefit of social development of society.

The competition project for the reconstruction of the "Children's World" building in Kyiv by "Edelburg Architects" provided for the construction of a new volume, expanding the commercial area. Source of images: "Edelburg Architects"

Despite the fact that I still consider our reconstruction project justified and fully in line with the design task, we accepted the decision of the society and the jury based on the concept developed by the Dmytro Aranchii Architects studio, as the one that we will implement in the project. Although I read that even this project (the result of a public architectural competition for facades) does not satisfy many.

PM: The story with "Children's World" is still resolved, it is not a stalemate. But very often the discussion between representatives of the public and the customer reaches a dead end. What to do in this case?

A.K.: The owner (investor) very often forgets about the needs and priorities of citizens. The dialogue between the authorities, investors, and citizens is extremely important here. Based on the experience of designing in the city of Kyiv, I can say that the local Department of Cultural Heritage Protection is always focused on a constructive and negotiating process. Everyone in Kyiv is aware of the loud scandal surrounding the reconstruction of the "Flowers of Ukraine" building.

I can summarize that the city, having analyzed the arguments of the public, continues to look for mechanisms of interaction with the object's investor. Yes, today we have another ruin in the city center. Yes, the situation is difficult, but if all parties are constructively tuned, a way out can always be found. The city's resources are limited, so they are not always able to investigate potentially valuable city objects on their own.

For this, the public is attracted, with which, as I see, a fairly direct dialogue has been established. I would not call the situation deadlocked here, it seems to me that with a sufficient level of communication, the restoration of this object will take a significant and successful position in the case of the developer. Although public resonance is necessary right now, we all need to learn a lesson from this history.

 

They talked Konstantin Kovshevatsky and Iryna Isachenko