We talked about the concept of the new General Plan with the head of the developer company Sergey Bronevytskyi; learned the point of view of an expert in the field of historical heritage protection Olga Rutkovskaya; transport expert Viktor Petruk; designer Elena Fateeva, engaged in the protection of green areas of the city; representative of the development company Daria Kukharenko.
This collection of subjective opinions cannot be perceived as a sociological study, since it cannot claim any representativeness. Our goal is to simplify the task for all participants of future public hearings, discussions, and discussions and help them focus on the strengths and weaknesses of such an important document for Kyiv.
Daria Kuharenko
Commercial director of A Development
Daria Kuharenko
PRAGMATIKA.MEDIA: We have already found out what experts on the protection of historical heritage and experts in the transport sector think about the draft General Plan for Kyiv. We heard the opinion of activists protecting the green zones of the Ukrainian capital. And of course, it is important to find out the point of view of the representative of the development company. What is your impression of the new General Plan?
Daria Kuharenko: I will not speak for all developers, but I can express my subjective point of view. All these huge program plans, which are solemnly presented, are essentially recognized as a "Potemkin village". Figuratively speaking, a beautiful document is like a huge white elephant. It disintegrates into a mass of pieces, each of which subsequently undergoes complex metamorphoses. And if these fragments are put together again, we will never be able to assemble an elephant, we will have a completely different animal. You can talk for a long time about the shortcomings and merits of the General Plan or similar regulatory documents, but I am primarily interested in their feasibility. Who will be the guarantor and supervise all participants in this complex scheme?
The plan, which should predetermine the life of the city for the next 20 years, is nonsense. Tell me, 20 years ago, did anyone imagine how our needs would change? Now mental changes shape our everyday life, and as a result, this should be reflected in the infrastructure. For many, the term sharing economy is still an abstraction, some kind of virtual chip from Silicon Valley. But this is a reality in which a huge number of people already live. Echoes of these trends are noticeable here. More and more often, people refuse to buy housing, preferring to rent it, while buying transport is moving to renting. In the global sense, this is ownership for use. This is a colossal mental shift, which cannot but affect the cities. After all, it shapes our every activity - how and where to live, how to use transport. In retail, new technologies are dooming whole segments to death, while others are forcing them to revise their model. Basic town-planning documents, such as the General Plan, need to be adjusted every couple of years.
We are captives of a stereotypical image: monster developers and defenseless residents
Someone will call such an approach consumerist. We are used to pathetic phrases like: "The city is something bigger than cars and apartments!" Yes, the city is people, and the city environment should correspond to how they live. I am far from thinking that now in the General Plan, no matter how wonderful it is, it is possible to foresee changes in the tone of life for the next 20 years.
Moreover, I am not ready to perceive the provisions of the General Plan as a dogma, since it is not clear who will control and guarantee it, and it is not clear, taking into account whose expert opinions it was compiled in general and will be transformed. Every company has a strategy, a mission, an idea. So the General Plan should be an idea and set development trends in each of its directions. And specific instructions or plans must be created annually, taking into account all the characteristics of each individual project. In our rapidly changing world, such an approach is more progressive. I am not sure that there is a need to confirm at the level of the General Plan that here we have a mandatory green zone and it should be exactly that. Such installations contradict the dynamics of modern Kyiv.
PM: You say that the General Plan should be an idea. And what exactly can the superidea for Kyiv consist of?
D.K.: Today, no one in the city deals with meaning. When we say "Palo Alto", associations with Silicon Valley, the IT industry, and a lot of money immediately arise. The idea was based on who and why this place is being created. I think that Kyiv is facing a priority challenge today that is not related to the General Plan and construction. Kyiv needs to form the history of its brand. It will be determined who he wants to attract as residents, for whom he wants to become attractive and what model of the future he is building. Today it is impossible to be a "city for all". And if futurists talk about the fact that there will be not countries, but only cities, each with its own specialization, then we should first of all think not about the General Plan, but about competition for residents.
They often complain that Ukraine is losing talents. It seems to me that the authorities of Kyiv need to think hard: if this is a trend for the whole of Ukraine, then the capital is in relatively favorable conditions and has a chance to form a nurturing environment that attracts talents in a single city. But this is not the task of the General Plan, this is ideology. It is unlikely that the General Plan determined the development of Singapore 30 years ago. First of all, an idea appeared that made developers, transporters and residents jump.
PM: Who should and can formulate an idea for Kyiv?
D.K.: It should be the result of a discussion of people involved in the process of urban development - representatives of the government, whose task is to create conditions, representatives of private business, since they are the ones who provide financing. And we need to conduct a study to determine where our niche is in the world economy and in which area we have more chances to succeed.
Kyiv Food Market before reconstruction. Photo: Pavel Grozyan
PM: Is it even possible to define the niche and idea of Kyiv for the future, if we have been searching for our own authenticity for a long time and so far without results?
D.K.: Speaking of authenticity, identity, it seems to me that we should not mix history with the present, rather, we should not focus on past achievements, but honestly assess the current situation and answer which of the possible goals are achievable for us, and which will not be reached, even if will try very hard This is a pragmatic approach, and someone believes that only people deprived of roots can reason like that. But all of Kyiv for me is a city without roots. When I come to Lviv, I see that the roots have been preserved there. Its historical part, its architecture is in a better state of preservation than that of the capital. The people of Lviv have a reverent attitude towards their city — and not only ordinary residents, but also people who hold responsible positions and manage large businesses. The inner commitment to their heritage is expressed in their daily work. Someone does not agree on a land plot or some architecturally nightmarish object. There is internal self-censorship. And with this, Lviv favorably stands out among other cities of Ukraine. Odessa has become very mosaic, fragmented and is quickly losing its identity. Kyiv is the same. Today, this is a city that is completely focused on commerce, on short money with no prospects for the future. None of those who lead Kyiv today rely on historical roots. "Right now, you need to earn right now"!
The same object of A Development Kyiv Food Market is almost the only example for Kiev of recent years of rethinking and creating a new essence in old walls. At the city level, we have to do the same work, rethink the old and create a new one. Kiev now has the energy of many young, determined people, and the question is: where will he apply this energy, what opportunities will he provide? Not only new metro stations or tram lines are important, but the opportunity to develop and live. Now a young man, even being a native of Kiev, when choosing a place to live, considers Kyiv only as one of the options. If the people who are its driving force leave the city, and there are always not so many of them, it is more tragic than the absence of a new park, a new tram line or a subway line. Everything will be meaningless and for no one.
Kyiv needs to form the history of its brand. It is impossible to be a "city for everyone"
PM: The developers of the General Plan say that, in addition to the forecast function, the purpose of the document is to bring order to the construction industry. Following the General Plan, zoning will appear, which will limit the height. How do you think this will bring order to the chaos?
D.K.: I don't believe it, but I'll believe it when I see it. Let's see how it works. Let's ask ourselves a question: logically, where should the area with the maximum height and maximum density of buildings be located? It is absolutely obvious to me that this is the city center, which largely coincides with the historical center. All authorities and representatives of large companies are traditionally located in the central part of the city. Where, if not in the business center of the capital, can high-rise buildings be built? This is logical. But the strictest height restrictions fall on the center. Do you not find that there is already a contradiction in this?
The appeal "Let's clear the center from high-rise buildings!" sounds loud, but in order to change something, it is necessary to offer an alternative. Practically all large cities, such as Paris or London, limiting construction in historical centers, offer an equally interesting option for a new business center.
Kyiv Food Market after reconstruction. Photo: Pavel Grozyan
PM: But Kyiv has its own specifics, here in the center they are building not so much business centers as residential high-rises. How can this be explained?
D.K.: There are economic prerequisites. High-rise business centers are always expensive in terms of construction, maintenance, and rent. Why are they usually located in downtowns? Because even though land and real estate are expensive, everyone wants to work in the center, because this is a matter of prestige, status, and a sign of the company's success. Or, at least, until recently it was considered so. Compactness allows you to save a lot of time when you need to organize a meeting. This is a banal convenience.
The appearance of high-rise housing in the center is also tied to economic expediency. Moreover, our housing is cheap compared to other countries. Yes, we have bad credit, but here there is no such difference between the prices of a square meter in the center and on the outskirts, whereas in London or New York this gap is almost extreme. Therefore, despite the economic situation in Ukraine as a whole, housing in the center of Kyiv is highly liquid. Therefore, it is built.
I am very against categorical things. The existing disparity in construction should push us not to total bans, but to begin to destabilize this situation. With a selective approach. Somewhere the building can and should be supplemented to form an architectural ensemble, and somewhere a moratorium should be introduced to preserve the status quo. Now everyone is familiar with the story of the construction of the Dnieper slopes... Yes, this is the protective zone of the Lavra, which is under the protection of UNESCO. But today, in fact, there is already some construction there. And from my point of view, it is probably possible to step back from the dogma about the inviolability of protected zones, and think - is it not possible to reduce them reasonably? If a little hell has already been built there, then it is necessary to figure out how to turn this hell into some kind of composition. No, I am not in favor of the total development of the slopes, but taking into account the fact that no one will demolish the buildings that have already been built, I think it is right to correct the disproportion.
I think that it is more competent to work not in the direction of limiting the height, but first of all to improve the quality of architecture. Because for me, for example, the construction of economy housing in Pechersk is a completely wild phenomenon. The city center should consist of either outstanding historical buildings or outstanding modern ones. They should not be banal.
Where, if not in the business center of the capital, can high-rise buildings be built?
PM: The developers of the General Plan have already reacted to the first wave of criticism in the sense that, they say, this criticism is initiated by developers who benefit from chaos and uncertainty. The public, in turn, assert that the General Plan primarily takes into account the interests of developers to the detriment of residents. As a representative of the developer, do you agree with the statement that it is the developers who are the root cause of the problems? What, in your opinion, is the reason for such stigmatization?
D.K.: Oh, it's like this all over the world: developers are to blame for everything, they are absolute evil. I think the reason is that it is the developer and his construction equipment that change the picture of the usual world. People keep their favorite shed, which has stood in one place since time immemorial, where skis and sleds were stored... And suddenly it turned out that the shed is located in the center of a rapidly developing capital and this plot is suitable for replacing the shed with a valuable one for the city and a useful object for citizens. And most often, the developer is labeled a thief precisely by the owners of such a metaphorical shed. I am not saying that all developers are white and fluffy. But we are captives of a stereotypical image: monster developers and small and defenseless residents who oppose them. Of course, the sympathies of the majority are always on the side of the little fighters for justice.
When a developer builds a large, beautiful house, people move into it who are recognized as "moved in" from the point of view of old residents. And when the developer tries to build the next house, the new tenants side with the old residents: "Leave it as it is, the main thing is that we don't have new neighbors!" It's banal, but in 90% of cases we understand that the negative attitude towards developers is dictated by a reluctance to change.
