To find an answer to these difficult questions, we decided to turn to the professional experience of Vasyl Tymkovich, the head of the state Institute "UkrNDIproektrestavratsiya" — a basic organization in the field of restoration and co-author of profile DBN A. 2.2. — 14:2016 "Composition and content of scientific project documentation for the restoration of architectural monuments and urban planning." So, a purely professional look at one of the most painful topics of our time.
Vasyl Tymkovich
PRAGMATIKA.MEDIA: We hear from architects and developers that Ukraine has extremely strict rules governing all issues related to the restoration and repair of architectural heritage. But how then, taking into account the strictness of the regulatory framework, can one explain numerous cases when inept "restoration" distorts buildings, or "European renovation" is carried out under the guise of restoration? One gets the impression that something is globally wrong in the field of restoration.
Vasyl Tymkovich: Restoration is a very specific and rather painful topic. Our main task is to preserve what past generations have brought to us. Any nation, country, having its own history, preserves them for future generations. Yes, architectural monuments are history, they are objects of tourism, they are the pride of the people. But their difference from museum exhibits is that most of them are constantly operated in difficult conditions — they are buildings in which people work or live.
I do see a few systemic issues. We are the authors of both old and updated building codes in 2016. DBN A. 2.2–14:2016 "Composition and content of scientific and project documentation for the restoration of architectural monuments and urban planning" shows that any approach to restoration begins from previous works, during which the general technical condition of the monument is determined. Their result is the drafting of a "restoration task" in which the entire policy of further design is prescribed. Next, a comprehensive scientific study of the material structure and technologies used to construct the building is conducted, a historical reference is drawn up, and a comprehensive scientific research program is developed. If this building has a centuries-old history, then all its periods must be confirmed, including laboratory tests. For this, samples of stone, brick, mortar are taken. And all subsequent project decisions of restorers are based on the results of these scientific studies. Previously, this methodology was strictly followed, and all objects passed through professional restorers; traditions were formed when one restorer almost all his life led several "his" monuments and knew them thoroughly. This is not the case now for a number of reasons.
One of the sculptures on the facade of the Roman Catholic Church of the Ascension and St. Joseph on the territory of the museum-reserve "Pidgoretsky Castle".
Photo: Yuriy Ferendovych
The tender procurement system does not take into account the specifics of restoration works. It is believed that competition and the market will decide everything. During tenders on Prozorro, the determining factor for identifying the winner is, unfortunately, the price. The monopoly of restoration scientists has ended, and monuments often fall into the hands of non-professional performers. They won on the price, and other requirements are often written very weakly, since the customers themselves are mostly not specialists in restoration. But when the tender procedure starts, you can change almost nothing. The terms of the tender lay down the minimum terms for conducting comprehensive scientific research, and minimize their volumes. The customer is often not interested in this part at all. He needs a project, according to which he will solve the problem of restoration of the monument with adaptation tomorrow. Now I am not referring to Sofia of Kyiv or the Lavra, where the collective is preserved, dozens of professionals and scientists work. There, the tender documentation is always at a fairly high level. But in general, scientific restoration in our country is highly doubtful, I emphasize - scientific.
We used to go to the facility as a team and conduct thorough research there for several months. Samples of paint, painting, masonry, etc. were selected. Then they waited for the laboratory results. Usually, scientific and comprehensive research was not done in less than a year. Therefore, designers had the opportunity to make informed decisions based on the results of research. Now the experimental stage has been reduced to a minimum - run-run.
PM: And what does this rush lead to?
V. T.: We all see the sad result. It must be understood that any damage caused to an architectural monument due to haste or an unprofessional approach may be irreparable. If something goes wrong during the renovation of a normal house, it can be fixed later. But it is more difficult with sights. To work with them, it is necessary to adhere to certain methodological approaches, to take into account the peculiarities of design technology. For each attraction, an individual approach should be applied, taking into account only its characteristics and real condition. The main rule of restoration is to do no harm. If we cannot solve a problem today, it will be solved by future generations. A layman does not possess such knowledge. But sooner or later the results of inept restoration will become obvious to everyone, and naturally, everything turns into a scandal.
The facade of the abandoned building on the street. Gogolivska in Kyiv. Photo: Yuriy Ferendovych
PM: For example, in Kyiv, work on the facade of the opera house continues for the third year. It became unevenly mottled, and the drains were generally painted with copper paint for some reason. How could this happen?
V. T.: It is difficult for me to explain even to myself what happened there. Once upon a time, we were engaged in the restoration of this object, but we have not been conducting it for a long time. I've heard some comment that this is just the beginning of the work; painted with what was at hand, and everything will be in order at the end. But it seems to me that this is an example of an unprofessional approach to restoration.
PM: In the context of these problems, the rush and the lack of professional personnel, what can you say about the pros and cons of the government's "Great Restoration" project, which plans to restore more than a hundred heritage sites?
V. T.: "Great restoration" is the very first declaration by the state during the years of independence that there is an understanding of the importance of preserving objects of immovable cultural heritage. In recent years, there has been no stable budgetary funding for the restoration of our numerous monuments. Well, if the restoration of some outstanding heritage object took place under the auspices of the president or a famous figure, then money appeared. But sporadically. For example, in Baturin, everything was done while the president was interested in power. With the change of government, the funds ran out and some types of work were never completed (the reconstruction of the fortress and the restoration of the church-tomb of the last hetman of Ukraine, Kyril Razumovsky, and his palace in Baturyn took place at the initiative of the third president of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko — ed. note).
The tender procurement system does not take into account the specifics of restoration works. It is believed that competition and the market will decide everything.
However, the "Great Restoration" program is also still planned only until the end of 2023. In a conversation with the Minister of Culture and Information Policy, I expressed my opinion that it was better to announce that this is only the first stage of the "Great Restoration", which should not have restrictions in time. It is necessary to understand that restoration is an endless and continuous process of maintaining immovable cultural heritage objects in proper condition. I hope that it will be so.
The first stage of the "Great Restoration" is designed for financing in two directions. The first is the development of scientific project documentation, if there is none. And if it has already been prepared, funds are allocated for the actual restoration work. Some nature reserves, for example, the National Nature Reserve "Sofia Kyivska" and the National Kyiv-Pechersk Historical and Cultural Reserve have developed scientific project documentation, so they will receive funds for their implementation. Their teams have good specialists in their composition, so there is no doubt that they will be able to use the allocated funds effectively and on time.
PM: But is there a downside? To what extent is it possible to comply with the requirements for the quality of work, if a strict political deadline is set from above?
V. T.: The deadline, rather, is not political, but financial. Budget funds are allocated late, as a rule, from the end of the second quarter. Then the tender procedures last almost 1,5 months, which further shortens the time to complete the works. And they are, as I explained to you, compressed to a minimum. Preliminary work, complex scientific research, the "Project" stage and working documentation — all this is often done in 5 months. And if little time is devoted to the development of project documentation, then the probability of errors, which can turn into significant damage to the monument, is higher.
A fragment of the facade of an abandoned building on the street. Turgenevskaya in Kyiv.
Photo: Yuriy Ferendovych
With a sharp increase in the amount of funding in the field of restoration and taking into account the circumstances that the number of professional restorers, both designers and production workers, has significantly decreased in recent years due to various reasons, there are risks that the restoration process will involve performers who have no experience working with attractions. This, in turn, can lead to low-quality works at attractions. Therefore, these risks must be taken into account when implementing the "Great Restoration" program.
Unfortunately, I personally had the opportunity to see already developed project documentation for quite important objects, where the developer was an individual entrepreneur. In the filled stamps, he is both a director and a developer, he is also his own norm control. A number of project solutions raise doubts about their effectiveness. Here it is obvious that this designer does not have relevant experience in solving complex problems at monuments, which can negatively affect the quality and efficiency of the restoration as a whole - and this is already a problem.
In order to master financing within the calendar year, contractors often violate the technology of work. For example, facade restoration works are carried out in late autumn, the mortar did not have time to dry, then winter, and in the spring everything fell apart. Unfortunately, we have many objects where restoration work was started ten years ago, but never finished. By the way, in the same Baturin facilities were never put into operation. But no new funding was allocated to complete what had been started.
I believe that if there is no certainty that we will have time to complete the entire complex of works on the object without interruption, then it is better not to start. I am sure that it would be expedient to adopt a rule at the legislative level that the financing of the restoration of monuments cannot be stopped until it is completely finished, otherwise there will be negative consequences.
PM: Many architects believe that it is necessary to give more freedom in approaches to heritage objects, to allow choosing a new function, at least. And there are many conservatives who believe that heritage objects can only be restored and period. What is your personal opinion?
V. T.: To adapt or preserve-museumify? It cannot be said that one of these approaches is clearly better than the other. Restoration is not an assembly line and individual solutions are needed every time. There is no one-size-fits-all recipe. After all, monuments are atypical buildings, they are of different ages and in different conditions. I remember we had a round table with restorers from Berlin on the territory of the "Sofia Kyivska" National Museum. They talked about how they decided what to do with the old water tower in the old part of the city. It no longer works, so it is unnecessary in the modern infrastructure of the city, and its preservation was problematic for the city. But there was a developer who said: "I am ready to keep the tower, but I will adapt it for housing." And they agreed with him. I will say this: in Ukraine, such a project would not be possible now! The public would rise up, the monuments protection authorities would rise up. The Germans are very pragmatic - if we understood correctly, it was not the restorers who made the decision, but the municipality, which realized that otherwise preserving the tower would be problematic for the city. Obviously, their society was ready.
Most of the projects are "restoration with adaptation". Everyone understands the fact that attractions should live a full life.
PM: Do you think that our society is not ready?
V. T.: In our case, heritage issues are always highly politicized. No one wants to dig into causal relationships. Without delving into the details of the project, without understanding the specifics, our people are always ready to go to the barricades as soon as they see that the process is not going the way they imagined it.
We have many abandoned monuments. Yes, they are formally on someone's balance sheet, but the owner does not have the funds to bring them back to life, or at least preserve them. And they just collapse. Have you noticed that when an object collapses by itself, in Ukraine, in many cases, no one mourns it? We can only talk among ourselves, complain. But there is no one to blame - he himself collapsed. So, if we suddenly approach an ancient building with the aim of finding a new function, whether it is the state or a private developer, problems immediately begin. And proposals to strengthen the responsibility of owners through fines will not solve this problem, rather make it worse. Difficult decisions are needed here.
In fact, in recent years, we have less and less pure restoration or museification. Most of the projects are "restoration with adaptation". Everyone understands the fact that attractions should live a full life.
PM: Recently, together with the architects, we prepared a material on the restoration of the building of the former military commandant's office, where, as we thought, a compromise was reached between the preservation of the architectural monument and the renovation of the object, which was returned to urban life. Can this example be considered a precedent, one that can become a model of work with architectural heritage?
V. T.: Restoration was carried out with adaptation, and a new function became possible - trade, offices, restaurants. We worked on this object, helped to find compromise solutions so as not to harm the monument. Among restorers, there are also many supporters of this approach, when "nothing can be done!" But one must understand that no one will simply restore such an object - no one needs it with a fortification function, not even the state. How to operate, maintain, store it? I think, in this particular case, the positive prevails, and it is obvious to me.
The interior of the abandoned building on the street. Turgenevskaya in Kyiv. Photo: Yuriy Ferendovych
PM: How do you advise developers and architects to act to achieve such a compromise?
V. T.: It seems to me that architects are being a little deceptive when they say that they face insurmountable obstacles. You don't know what to do - always act according to the law, and it clearly defines - before performing any work on the object of cultural heritage, it is necessary to develop scientific project documentation in the established order. If the project is developed by professionals, they will be able to find a reasonable proposal and correct arguments during the discussion. The review and approval procedures also minimize the risk that the memo will become hostage to a potential error on your part.
PM: That is, to find a good case for allowing an "accommodative restoration" or allowing a change in function?
V. T.: Yes, architects (not all, of course) and developers complain that the law is written too rigidly, and to go through the entire procedure, it is necessary to spend a lot of time and effort. But listen, something must be sacrificed if we have a common goal - to preserve the heritage. If we do everything hastily, we will be left with no sights at all. There is a golden mean. The reconciliation procedure cannot be removed. It is necessary to undergo examination and coordination in the established order. And at this stage, problematic issues (solutions) can be the subject of discussion and debate.
But now few people do even a sketch project, because it takes time and money. Personally, when I see that the monument is potentially problematic - losses, superstructures, late reconstructions and so on - I recommend to all customers: make a relatively quick and cheap sketch project, which can be agreed upon and submitted to the architectural council. Not when millions have already been spent on working documentation and engineering networks, but at the first stage. If there are doubts that the restoration works on the monument may cause a negative public resonance, solve these problems at the stage of the sketch project.
Architects and developers complain that it is necessary to spend a lot of time and effort. But listen, something must be sacrificed if we have a common goal - to preserve the heritage.
Yes, many consider public opinion to be the opinion of amateurs. Unfortunately, there are also problems here. But we live in society, so we cannot simply ignore people's opinions. Sometimes they take time, get into the process without understanding the details, are annoying, but this should be accepted and not ignored. And one of the ways out is clear arguments in defense of one's position. If we are moving in a legal way, then it is always possible to justify this or that decision. For example, why is the facade being restored according to documents from the beginning of the XNUMXth century, and not from a later period. If the issue is debatable, it should be brought up for discussion at advisory councils, round tables. And it is not the customer who should explain the details, but the professional restorer.
At the Institute, we have our own scientific and technical council, and when the most difficult issues need to be resolved, we have the opportunity to gather our main project architects, engineers, and invited experts. We can also discuss debatable points at our level. It often happens that the sight has a look that has already become familiar to the townspeople. But there is historical evidence that it used to be different.
PM: But it is not always clear which period in the history of long-lived monuments must be followed in the process of restoration work. Do you want to save all layers that appeared later?
V. T.: My personal opinion is that we should try to preserve as much as possible all historical layers and periods that have come down to us, except for those that are dissonant. This is also the history and life of this building. Yes, the stairs may have been added later, but they are also 200 years old. Everything is individual. When Pyrohoshcha was being restored, the authors found a suitable scientific justification for the period of restoration, and the remains of the foundations were museumified. But, for example, why can't we restore the Tithe Church? Because there is not enough data. If we build something based not on accurate data, but on fantasy and assumptions, then we will simply lie to ourselves and to the whole world - they say that we have restored (restored) an ancient church. It is more honest to admit that we cannot preserve and museumize the ruins that have survived to our time, because only they have the status of a monument.
The pedestal of the sculpture of St. Joseph on the territory of the museum-reserve "Pidgoretsky Castle".
Photo: Yuriy Ferendovych
PM: So you have to "roll back" in time back to some documented point?
V. T.: Of course. In restoration, the position "I want it this way" or "I see it this way" is unacceptable. Any design decision must be based on scientific research. And preferably not only historiographic, but also laboratory. This way also does not guarantee that we will do without discussions. We can try to convince opponents - politely and with arguments. Arguments on the table and let's discuss. Only this way is justified. If we are unable to reach a consensus, the only thing left is to leave it as it is. Perhaps our descendants will find a better solution.
Yes, arguments and discussions take time. The monument is "sick", is crumbling, and we are discussing. Here is Gostinny dvor - if we enter into a long discussion, then in five years we will get ruins. And there are many such cases - they seem to want to do it, but they cannot decide what exactly and which function to choose. And if the public realizes that the process is being delayed precisely because of it, then it is necessary to ensure that emergency works are carried out, and continue to discuss, but not endlessly.
PM: There is no concept of "renovation" in the Law of Ukraine "On the Protection of Cultural Heritage" and in the relevant DBN. This is both the addition of new architectural volumes and the expansion of spaces — that is, much greater freedom of action. Isn't it time for us to follow the path of civilized countries of the world, where thanks to renovation, ancient buildings are most often brought back to life?
V. T.: In the long run, it seems to me that renovation will not get us anywhere. But if we now unequivocally admit that adaptation is inevitable and we will go in this direction in slender rows, then this will also not lead to anything good. We should first of all look for a function as close as possible to the original one. Then it will be possible to minimize the intervention in the memory for the sake of the new function. Yes, the monument will have to be coordinated with modern safety standards, this is often impossible to do without interfering with the structure. But if we choose a function that is radically different, we will have to force it into the building. The fewest problems are when you have to restore a church that remains a church. And with civilian buildings, everything is more complicated.
When we work on DBN, we are simply torn - on the one hand we want to simplify, on the other - we understand that the consequences of simplification can be fatal. For example, the term "restorative repair" was introduced. And understanding that such a repair was preceded by a complex restoration, and all the documentation has already been developed, it was prescribed that it is allowed to be carried out at one stage with the creation of only a working project. This amendment was "passed" despite very difficult discussions. Emergency works also allowed to be done in one stage, to install supports, for example, or to take the building into a truss, without waiting until a full-fledged project is developed and restoration is carried out. But society and the professional environment must be ready for relaxation. And in our country, as part of the "anti-emergency works", they begin to carry out something large-scale, neglecting the interests of the monument and the principles of restoration. It so happened that the phrase "anti-emergency works are not actually restoration works", which I personally wrote in the DBN, in amendments No. 1 to the current DBN A. 2.2–14:2016, we have now removed it, as it has started to be abused.
PM: The priorities of the Ministry of Culture are to restore the tourist attractiveness of the objects and turn them into "points of attraction", according to the words of the minister. From an urban point of view, these priorities are absolutely justified. But to what extent are they justified from the point of view of heritage preservation?
V. T.: We understand why tourists come to Rome, Paris, and Cairo. For the sake of magnetic objects that interest people. Yes, there are advanced people who are ready to travel hundreds of kilometers to touch the old walls somewhere in the hinterland and show the children - this is our story. But our task is not only to give monuments a second life, but also to continue it and pass it on to posterity. This also requires infrastructure. Therefore, to get to an interesting castle or palace, travelers also need a high-quality road. They need a parking lot, a hotel where they can spend the night, a restaurant where they can eat, and children - a playground and so on.
It is also necessary to consider whether the planned activity does not conflict with the history of the monument, with the environment in which it exists. Also, tourist activity should not in any way cause physical damage to the monument itself.
Restoration is not an assembly line and individual solutions are needed every time. There is no one-size-fits-all recipe.
The attraction is obviously needed. Our world is already different - it is flexible, mobile, and the very fact of rigid dogmas and restrictions already annoys many, is not accepted by society. We left the USSR, where we lived in rigid dogmas for decades. And now they have swung to the other extreme. I am in favor of attracting tourists to get to know the sights, but do it wisely. Develop the surrounding infrastructure - hotel, recreational. It is necessary to remember: you cannot place anything yourself within the limits of the zone protected by law. But you can order options for the implementation of certain ideas from the designers, try to get approval from the relevant authorities and prove the feasibility of the idea for each case individually, taking into account the features of a specific attraction or complex.
PM: Many people believe that the approval of the historical and architectural plan of Kyiv will help us preserve the architectural heritage in the capital, but there is also an opposite opinion. What do you think?
V. T.: The historical and architectural reference plan sets us the rules of the game. Previously, everyone believed that the problem is that urban planning conditions and restrictions are issued without control and in manual mode. Several years ago, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a Resolution that does not allow the issuance of town planning conditions and restrictions in the absence of a historical and architectural reference plan. This is a tough measure. But it worked - all cities rushed to make historical and architectural reference plans. Now any architect can see on which plots this or that activity is possible.
But you remember that we in Kyiv used to have a historical and architectural plan, indeed with many shortcomings. However, no one did it either. That is, we do not always have a problem with the lack of a document, but with the fact that it did not work for a number of reasons. At the same time, they found an interesting "loophole". The purely scientific work, which had the title "Historical and urban planning justification", was given official status by introducing its approval by certain state institutions (for example, the Ministry of Culture). This document became a well-known element of corruption, which actually legitimized many new buildings, which today are dissonant and negatively affected the perception of Kyiv as a historical city.
A lot can be said about this, but for today IMO has been canceled. Therefore, the only document that regulates the urban planning activities of historical settlements, and on the basis of which urban planning conditions and restrictions are issued, is the historical and architectural reference plan with the boundaries of the historical area and the project of protective zoning.
Was it necessary to develop a new historical and architectural plan for the city of Kyiv? Yes, this document may sometimes change over time, it is not a dead document.
For example, there are cases when specialists who develop plans do not take into account the fact that the city must live and develop. And if a "giant" historical area is singled out without serious arguments, in which almost nothing can be done, then all that remains to be done by the city community is to either sit down and cry, or order the adjustment of the IAOP to more experienced specialists. In Kyiv, land is very expensive and there are many monuments, many problematic places. Many more conflicts and scandals await us until society matures to civilized methods of successful problem solving. Society does not mature by itself, it must be in the sun. And the sun should be professionals. This is my point of view as a scientist and restorer with almost 40 years of experience.
And finally. In Ukraine today, there really is an extremely acute problem with the preservation of immovable objects of cultural heritage. And until society understands that, in addition to putting pressure on any government at various levels regarding wages, utility tariffs, foreign exchange rates, and so on, it is necessary to stimulate it to identify with the state's strategy in the field of restoration. Otherwise, nothing will fundamentally change. The authorities must understand that the preservation of cultural heritage is a matter of national security. And in addition to financing, which today is decided within the framework of the "Great Restoration", systemic structural changes are also needed. It is necessary to develop a state program for the next twenty years at least and adopt it at the government level. In terms of financial costs, this program can compete with the road construction program. After all, complex restoration of 1000 monuments will require at least 100 billion hryvnias. And here the efforts of both the authorities and society as a whole are needed.
Iryna Isachenko spoke
