Organize the chaos. Difficult questions for architects

In recent weeks, the topic of post-war reconstruction of Ukraine has been actively discussed on global international platforms. Presentation of Ukrainian projects in Lugano, a plan for the rapid recovery of Ukraine's social infrastructure called Fast Recovery, discussion at the Dom Odbudowy Ukrainy conference in Warsaw, etc. The topic of recovery itself is multifaceted and, as a result, very debatable, and there is little structure and analytics in the turbulent flow of news, numbers and visualizations. People who have lost a roof over their heads demand immediate decisions from the authorities, and politicians are ready to make populist promises, not realizing that this is the wrong way, like putting out a fire with gasoline.

In an attempt to bring order to the chaos, we have formulated seven topical and difficult questions that we decided to ask Ukrainian architects to get their perspective on the order and priorities of the recovery campaign. In the first part of the material, we publish the answers of the deputy head of the Architectural Chamber of NSAU Anna Kyrii, architect and co-founder of the archimatika company Oleksandr Popov, urban planner and architect Julian Chaplinsky.

Anna Kyrii, Oleksandr Popov, Yulian Chaplinskyi

PRAGMATIKA.MEDIA: It is quite clear that all of us would like the fastest possible reconstruction of Ukraine. But the question is: can quick recovery be qualitative in principle? If so, under what conditions?

Anna Kyrii: Let's add "cheap" to the concepts of "fast" and "quality" - and we will get a typical request for the work of an architect in recent years. Another trend is actively added to this typical request today: "free". I can illustrate the answer to your question with a classic picture:

I will say as a citizen of Ukraine, not even as an architect: I do not want construction based on free projects in my state. Because it's definitely not about quality and it smells like corruption. And I am also very worried that cheap housing, schools, kindergartens, and shops will be mass-created according to typical projects. Because it has actually already started in my modern, independent and modern Ukraine. Typical projects are an absolute reproduction of the Soviet construction experience, the mistakes of which we are still digging up. So why should we project problems for the future today? Why do the law-makers - young people like people - drag us this Soviet system into modern times?

Regarding quick and long decisions: here you need to honestly analyze the tasks and divide them into tactical and strategic ones. Tactical - those that require immediate solutions: give people water, communication, repair networks, a roof over their heads. Strategic — to imagine what the city should be like, what its vision is, to create effective management offices on the ground, to make quality projects, to attract the best specialists and to implement everything.

Oleksandr Popov: It is possible to build quickly and qualitatively only when thoughtful preparatory work is carried out. This approach is valid for any field: quick implementation requires careful preparation. And in our case similarly. The quality of the architecture and infrastructure that will be built in peacetime—which will inevitably be replaced by war—is determined by the quality of wartime construction preparations.

Julian Chaplinsky: I do not believe in fast and high-quality construction processes, I believe that a fast recovery cannot be high-quality in principle. An exception may be the restoration of technical facilities, for example, transformer substations, industrial infrastructure facilities, which ensure the life of the city. There are quick solutions for this, they can be bought, adapted, integrated into a place, but this is not about cities, not about recovery.

PM: Is new capital construction possible during the war, before the end of hostilities? Should we now focus on temporary solutions, conservation of dilapidated buildings and development of plans?

Anna Kyrii: I thought it was possible, but changed my mind after talking with the architects who are now on the front lines. Because their thoughts are different: "What if there is a nuclear explosion tomorrow?" or "How to keep Kharkiv in general, if everyone leaves here?" We can only think about reconstruction when we protect it." Now I believe that capital construction is not necessary and inappropriate for victory. All resources should go to victory. But we really need thorough, high-quality, beautiful projects so that we can start construction the day after the victory.

That is why everyone who has this opportunity today needs to use the time to create projects. Good projects are those that are based on high-quality analytics, clear digital indicators, high-quality raw data, requests of specific people, communities, community leaders, city mayors. First of all, urban planning projects and specific construction projects based on urban planning solutions.

Oleksandr Popov: Now, if possible, it is necessary to complete what has already been started, preserve what needs to be restored for a long time, and plan for post-war development.

Julian Chaplinsky: A difficult question, because experience shows that capital construction even during war is possible for those who are interested in this construction. But should we hurry, as the mayor of Kharkiv or the mayor of Irpenya say about it? I believe that in their case capital construction of large objects is not necessary. I was very frightened by Mayor Irpen's statement that there is already a project designed for 50 square meters to house people. I believe that this decision is wrong.

Yes, I would focus on temporary solutions. Although there is a saying that there is nothing more permanent than temporary, but in this case we can talk about the adaptation of various industrial and administrative buildings to the needs and housing of displaced persons. I would concentrate more not on where to settle people, shove them on the shelves, but actually on planning: how and where these people will be functionally needed later in their cities, in other cities, what a comprehensive employment program in general for citizens of Ukraine.

Anna Kyrii: "Building cottage towns in the open field is the wrong way. The most important thing is not square meters, but social connections"

Irpin after the Russian occupation. Photo: Yuriy Ferendovych

PM: How to set priorities for recovery, what comes first: housing, administrative buildings, public buildings, infrastructure?

Anna Kyrii: I would put social infrastructure first. The important question is: what will people do in this place, why will they/will want to live here? It is necessary to take into account the experience of Chernobyl, when we received housing for displaced persons without displaced persons. We cannot afford to repeat these mistakes now. I am sure that we need to work with the existing urban fabric and urban infrastructure. Work with building density.

Building cottage towns in open fields, even if they are close to cities, is the wrong way to go. The most important thing is not square meters, but social connections. They should be nurtured, not destroyed, because it is about our identity, for which we are fighting. Again, there can be no universal solutions. Each community must determine for itself the priority of tasks and the priority of construction. Enough of paternalism. Let's start listening to people, involving them, and using the language of architecture and urbanism to solve exactly their requests and pains. Let me remind you once again that architecture is not about square meters, it is about solving socially important tasks.

Oleksandr Popov: It is necessary to approach the issue of restoration as a holistic task. All objects are necessary and important. But in each specific case, there are priorities determined by the context: somewhere, first of all, the bridge must be restored, because otherwise it will not be possible to pass, somewhere, a kindergarten must be opened, because the infrastructure and residential buildings have survived, and the children have nowhere to go, and somewhere it is necessary to start with housing. There is no general recipe.

Julian Chaplinsky: The question of priorities is, in fact, simple for me. In those cities that are badly damaged, mutilated, I would review the urban planning documentation. I looked at what mistakes were made by the developers of master plans, what meanings were put into these master plans and whether they were really justified in the process of their existence. It is also clear that the master plans must be revised in the context of the fact that perhaps the borders will shift and the war will stop at some other limits than it was.

Even if we remain within the borders of Ukraine until the seizure of Crimea, it seems to me that the activity in the border cities with Russia will decline qualitatively. Therefore, they need to develop some complex integrated concepts of development, both economic and spatial. And they can change significantly. First of all, it is necessary to review and rethink the spatial and economic development of a particular city.

The second stage is the laying of strategic foundations, such as a transport scheme taking into account the priority of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, public transport, changing the proportions of streets, moving away from modernist intersections, passing transit highways through the body of the city. All these things need to be revised and reworked. And the third stage is the energy and resource provision of cities, a shift towards sustainable ecological technologies and, in general, towards wise energy consumption.

PM: The modernists involved in the reconstruction of cities after the Second World War believed that mass destruction could be perceived as a positive and revolutionary factor, allowing to correct the mistakes of the past in the planning of cities and towns. Is it possible to talk about the possibility of fundamentally new planning for populated areas in Ukraine that were destroyed by bombing? If so, who should do it? Where should the initiative to develop new master plans come from?

Anna Kyrii: Correcting the mistakes of the past can only be welcomed. It does not depend on the era of modernism or any other. It's about evolution in principle, and right now that should be our mission. Especially since with the Soviet past, we made many of these mistakes, both in urban planning and in architecture. But I would like to note once again that we are carrying these same mistakes into the future. Because it is convenient to do as usual, but for non-linear solutions new thinking and creative intellectual efforts are required. We are now seeing a resurgence of typical projects called "reuse projects". This is Sovietism and a very big danger. Under no circumstances should you go this way.

Anna Kyrii's speech at the REBUILDUA LVIV 2022 International Forum on the Reconstruction of Ukraine

I think that the urban structure of cities will remain, and it is not worth talking about a completely new one. Again, experts should see things for themselves and not draw conclusions based on news photos. I visited the entire Kyiv region, I was in Kharkiv, Sumy. These are cities that have preserved their planning structure, which may need to be rethought, improved, but certainly not to create a new one.

It should also be understood that the streets and private areas remained. It is property or other property and legal issues, you will not pave a new road on private property. And to think that we are planning something from scratch is, to say the least, unprofessional. Correcting mistakes, evolving, improving is another story. Yes, it should be done, but with a very balanced and tactful approach.

Who should do this? To be honest, I do not believe in the leadership of the central government in the development of the country. The best thing they can do is to accumulate funds and financially support the communities, as well as not touch the urban planning legislation, at least for the period of the war. The initiative should come from local communities, leaders of these communities and professional institutions.

Oleksandr Popov: It is unlikely to add optimism if we say that the bombing of Ukrainian cities, in particular, erased the urban planning mistakes of the modernists, whose ideas were implemented in mass housing development after the Second World War. But these destructions really open up new opportunities to build new, humane, progressive, beautiful cities! Thank God, the urban planning doctrine on how to do this has already been worked out. Just invite your Western colleagues and apply with them!

After the war, there will be a turn of organizations and companies with grants and investments that will be ready to invest in the reconstruction of Ukraine. But they will invest only where a plan has been prepared. So, the time before the end of the war is, surprisingly, the only period when you can thoughtfully and carefully work out the master plans of our cities!

Julian Chaplinsky: If the modernists thought it was time for new spatial experiments, I believe that in the 70 years since the Second World War, we have already realized all their mistakes. And if Saltivka in Kharkiv has been completely bombed and cannot be restored, then this is a really good reason to return to healthier urban planning, healthier proportions of streets, healthier storeys, density and saturation with the right public spaces and transport. In this case, there is indeed an opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past.

The modernists thought that they were correcting the mistakes of previous eras, and we realized that it was necessary to correct the mistakes of the modernists. As for the initiative in the matter of developing master plans, it should come from the mayors. It seems to me that we should not expect any breakthrough, revolutionary solutions from the Ministry of Regions. It is necessary to work horizontally, between mayors who understand the needs of cities, are interested in the strategic development of the city for 100 years ahead, and not in building another square meter, dividing the land, allocating it for another residential anthill.

Oleksandr Popov: "It is necessary to plan, first of all, the restoration not of industrial zones, but of residential zones"

PM: Is such a drawing possible from scratch in the absence of any general urban planning policy of Ukraine? That is, if you build from a clean sheet, then what should you build? Industrial cities? Business campuses? Garden cities? Mixed cities? Does it make sense to start work on the planning of the same new Mariupol, if we still do not even know whether to restore the factories there or not?

Anna Kyrii: A general urban planning policy is needed, as well as an urban planning code. But now there are simply no people in power who are able to do it or attract real specialists. Maybe in a few years. Now, no, unfortunately. I've been deep into it, and I know what I'm talking about. There are other tasks and other priorities, and this is definitely not about a smart urban planning policy. Fortunately, we don't need to build anything from scratch now, because every city is above all meanings and visions, symbols and communication - those invisible connections that cannot be destroyed by any rockets and bombings. And we don't need city drawings from scratch.

We need the improvement of cities with a good reflection of mistakes and a healthy outlook on the future. Mariupol residents and local leaders must decide for themselves what their city is about, what its DNA is, what its essence is. And if it suddenly turns out that the point is not in the factories, then this must be accepted and reconsidered. Many industrial cities in the world changed their policies and became economically successful. I am definitely not ready to think about Mariupol instead of its inhabitants, but I am ready to reflect with them, hear and project based on their task as best as possible.

Oleksandr Popov: It is necessary to plan, first of all, the restoration of residential zones, not industrial ones. Factories will certainly be needed and will appear, but each new factory will be a separate business project, and there is no need for a "big five-year plan", only preferential taxation is needed! Under such conditions, we will quickly restore not only destroyed factories, but also build new ones!

Julian Chaplinsky: I will say an unpopular thing: I do not really believe that we are recapturing Mariupol. Therefore, I would avoid the issue of Mariupol altogether. If we talk in general about how to rebuild cities, then each city needs an individual approach. I would not wait for some ideal changes in the field of legislation and urban planning policy. Those people who are currently responsible for the urban planning policy of Ukraine are, in my opinion, anti-urbanists and anti-humanists in terms of urban development. Therefore, I believe that local elites should draw a picture of the future of this city and develop a strategy for how they can move towards it, adapting to the current legislation, but first of all it is important to draw this goal.

The goal as a strategy should be described in a very simple language accessible to everyone. Of course, we are talking about cities that have diversified incomes, not monocities that are based solely on industry. As for the eastern cities, which have mines and are simply doomed to a high share of industry, there is nothing terrible in this, but they should revise their plans in the direction of mixing, definitely. A mixed-use city is multifunctional, it can be a business park, a garden city, a resort city at the same time - all this is possible now.

PM: Would you personally undertake the development of a master plan for a new city? Whose? If not, I also wonder why?

Anna Kyrii: No, I would not undertake the master plan. I believe that everyone should do their job according to their profession. I do not have an urban planning certificate, and my company does not develop urban planning projects. I am a specialist in three-dimensional architecture. I know exactly how to create objects that will become a magnet for the city and create added value and success for it.

At the same time, I can personally participate in discussions about visions and systemic approaches to implementation, because I have the appropriate education, skills and experience. I understand which decisions are right and which are wrong, which develop the system and which destroy it.

Oleksandr Popov: Now I am already in working contact with the administration of Irpen to develop a development strategy.

Julian Chaplinsky: A master plan is a team effort. The developer of the master plan is rather the one who moderates the discussion process and simply highlights the thoughts and ideas of local residents and elites in diagrams, involving the maximum number of local stakeholders and politicians. And all of this later becomes a single puzzle. Further, the success of the master plan depends on the political will of the mayor and deputies, who will agree on the budgets. Because the point is not to develop a master plan, the point is to follow it and move strategically along it.

Julian Chaplinskyi: "Nthat legislation and all regulations will continue to work for one stakeholder - the class of developers"

Irpin after the Russian occupation. Photo: Yuriy Ferendovych

PM: In addition to the external and main factor — aggression, we also have internal problems. Which of the internal problems of Ukrainian politics and society today most strongly limits, ties the hands and ideas of architects and planners?

Anna Kyrii: The main player in the field of architecture in the eyes of the central government is the developer. She focuses all her decisions on this stakeholder and communicates with him. This is a completely false position that leads to the destruction of the system. We must understand that construction can be carried out without a builder (in the sense of a developer) in principle. Important participants of the system are customers (city users), architects, engineers, builders, other certified specialists, and everyone must do their work professionally. No one, except an architect, can conceive and design a city or an object of architecture. Well, no one!

And this profession is extremely discriminated against today. I will give specific examples:

  • lack of representation of Ukraine at the Architecture Biennale in Venice;
  • absence of a state award in the field of architecture;
  • lack of support from professional architectural institutions and public organizations;
  • lack of real self-regulation, which works for the architectural profession throughout Europe;
  • the lowest pricing for design in Europe;
  • permanent encroachment on the architect's copyright.

And this is just a short list that quickly comes to mind. There are actually many more examples.

But I continue to believe in the profession of an architect in Ukraine and in natural evolution. We went through a period when everyone understood that doctors are important - it was called covid, we are going through a period when everyone understood that the military is important - it is called war, now we have to go through a period when everyone will understand that architects are important, because they are the ones who will design and will rebuild Ukraine after our Victory!

Oleksandr Popov: Limits fear, and as derivatives of this fear - hunting for witches and searching for enemies of the people. As a result, in our architectural field, the choice is often made not based on the quality of the solution and level, but based on the "correctness of the specialist's pedigree". This was already the case in the USSR, that's how "Lysenkivshchyna" appeared instead of genetics. Only then were "renegades" branded in newspapers and at party meetings, and now - in social networks, Facebook and Telegram.

Julian Chaplinsky: The worst thing is that our legislation and all regulations continue to work for one stakeholder - a class of developers who lobby for their issues, think only about square meters, and sell it to us under the slogan "We have to move the economy forward." The economy is driven forward by money poured into the banking system and the ability to take out loans. This is what really drives the economy forward.

The business will instantly find its way and start building what it needs. And not the government, which invents laws that guarantee the provision of housing to all those who lost it, after the war, with a bare butt, sorry, regardless of whether there will be reparations from Russia or not. This is actually populism, it is mathematically and empirically impossible for Ukraine to have such resources in the next 20-30 years. But such laws again give rise to abuse, the allocation of money to some housing funds, and I am convinced that this is exactly what is being done. So, first of all, we need to abandon populism.

I would very much like to see, secondly, a deepening of decentralization. Ukrainian regions should feel that they have budgets. People will willingly pay taxes to the local budget if they understand where this money went. People will be more responsible towards the politics of their deputies, understanding whether they are stealing or not. A more active society will be a society in which it is understood that it is necessary to watch local TV channels more carefully, rather than national ones, and not to pray to the leader.

The third point is the need for decentralization of the regulatory framework. Local building rules — floor space, density — must be developed locally. Chernivtsi should have their own rules, Lviv should have their own, Dnipro should have their own. In places, it is much clearer what cities should be like. Nevertheless, we feed a whole bunch of project institutes, dating back to Soviet times, where hundreds of academics, who are 70 years old and older, write DBN for the whole of Ukraine and try to regulate any project decision.

I believe that this greatly inhibits the development of our architecture. And the fourth point is that it is necessary to develop a scheme of discussions about urban transformations in order to make corruption risks impossible. Currently, our legislation is aimed at the developer doing whatever he wants on the second day after buying the land, and neither the city, nor the chief architect of the city, nor the mayor - no one could influence that.

In conclusion, I can say that I really do not believe that everything will turn out perfectly for us, as we would like it to be. The country after the war will definitely go through a very difficult time for which we must all prepare. This is emotional decline, and moral decline, and penury, and long-term recovery. I think there will be long years without any holidays. And there will be a period of formation of gangs, because after every war criminality raises its head. And you have to prepare for that.

To be honest, all we can do now is dream as much as possible about a better Ukraine, better cities, and discuss it. Let it rage, boil between us, let this information metabolism take place. And in any case, information should be disseminated as widely as possible and the politicians we will elect in the future should be treated responsibly. They should be the ones who will bring common sense and will into legislation, concrete decisions of local councils and concrete decisions of local executive committees.

 

/The material is part of a special topic "Chaos and reconstruction. The future against war"/

 

 

Read also

Serhii Tselovalnyk. Architect against war

Architects Against War. Olga Kleitman and her native Kharkiv

85th anniversary of Guernica. A tragedy that should not have happened again