The head of the Ministry of Culture, Yevhenii Nyshchuk, is currently facing harsh criticism, especially from developers of Kyiv's historical and architectural heritage.
Evgeniy Nishchuk
Ukraine's Ministry of Culture is currently going through difficult times. Yevhen Nyshchuk, appointed minister after the Revolution of Dignity by the "Voice of Maidan," is currently facing harsh criticism.
He is criticized by former and current Kyiv officials and investors-developers interested in the development of Kyiv territories (often anonymously and through commissioned articles) for the fact that, while supporting the public (the Kyiv community), Nishchuk cancelled the decree of October 21.10, 2011, No. 912/0/16-11 on the approval of the Historical and Architectural Support Plan of Kyiv, which is part of the new general plan of Kyiv.
The decree was based on the decision of the Scientific and Methodological Council on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (SMC) dated September 9, 2011 (minutes No. 48) on the approval of the scientific and design documentation “Historical and architectural reference plan for the city of Kyiv; boundaries and modes of use of protected zones of monuments and historical areas of the city of Kyiv.”
He made this official announcement at the most inopportune moment for the authorities – October 27, 2014, when the Ministry of Regional Development and Construction was scheduled to hold a secret meeting (without notifying Kyiv residents) to approve Kyiv's new general plan through 2025 – putting a final end to the document's consideration. And then… such a bummer.
The Ministry of Regional Development and Construction was forced to submit the master plan documentation to the National Union of Architects of Ukraine for review and public discussion. The question of reviewing the master plan by the Scientific and Methodological Council of the Ministry of Culture arose once again.
Unfortunately, Kyiv Mayor V. Klitschko actively supports the process of pushing through Kyiv's new general plan "under pressure." It can be assumed that the government is also on board—Deputy Prime Minister V. Groysman is also demanding the swift adoption of Kyiv's new general plan.
Recently, the media reported plans to replace the Minister of Culture, apparently with someone more loyal to the government. It appears that there is a unanimous view within the Ukrainian government regarding the exploitation of Kyiv's commercial opportunities.
The extent to which the Kyiv authorities (and, apparently, the central authorities as well) are concerned about the use of historical territories and architectural monuments (through demolition, additions, and reconstruction) is demonstrated by the appointment of Klitschko to the post of head of the Department for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of the Kyiv City State Administration.
Having removed the intractable Ya. Dikhtyar, Klitschko first appointed in his place the singer Fortado, who had no special education (A. Nikoryak is a protégé of the Party of Regions), and then S. Gruzdo, who is little known for his achievements in preserving monuments.
Klitschko has ignored public demands to announce a competition for this position. Since the mayor avoids coordinating the candidacy with the Ministry of Culture (though he should), all his appointees are given the prefix "acting."
Another unpleasant development for the government is Yevhen Nyshchuk's intention to submit to the Verkhovna Rada a draft law "On the introduction of a moratorium on construction in buffer zones and adjacent territories of World Heritage sites, historically formed parts of settlements included in the List of Historical Inhabited Sites of Ukraine." And if the Minister of Culture is removed from his post, the reason will be clear.
A stumbling block could be the minister's active support in Kyiv. On November 10, 2014, 10 Kyiv-based public organizations, including the Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (UOPIK), "Civic Position," "Volia," and "Andreevsko-Peyzazhnaya Initiative," addressed a letter to the President of Ukraine asking him to retain Minister of Culture Yevhen Nyshchuk in his post when forming a new government. The letter provided a rationale.
Master Plan. Who and Why?
Kyiv residents know well who, when, and why began developing the new general plan. After the Revolution of Dignity, the old central and local governments began to be openly labeled criminal and corrupt.
Let's remember the names. The initiator of Kyiv's new general plan was L. Chernovetskyi. Read more about it in the article Leonid Chernovetsky: How "Lenya Kosmos" robbed Kyiv and moved to Georgia — (2006-2010), work on it was continued by V. Yanukovych’s protégé A. Popov (2010-2013). The chief architects of Kyiv during this time were V. Prysyazhnyuk (2003-2008), S. Bronevitsky (2009-2011), S. Tselovalnik (2011-2014).
There were also other individuals, untrained and infiltrated into the Kyiv City State Administration by the Yanukovych government, tasked with monitoring and regulating events. They remain in their positions today.
Is it conceivable that officials serving the criminal authorities would facilitate the development of a non-corrupt master plan? It's impossible, given that Kyiv's historic sites generate enormous profits for developers. Who these developers are is also well known.
Let's return to the minutes of the meeting of the National Museum of Kyiv No. 48 from September 9.09, 2011. At that time, the chairman of the National Museum of Kyiv was the deputy head of the Department for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, V. Vechersky (he was also the scientific director of the development of the documentation in question – the Historical and Architectural Reference Plan of Kyiv).
The developer was the Institute for Monument Protection Research, which was headed at the time by E. Serdyuk (she is now facing dismissal from her post as director of the St. Sophia of Kyiv Reserve for negligence).
In the spring of 2014, V. Vechersky was dismissed from his position following an internal investigation that revealed abuse of office.
Today, thanks to Minister Yevgeny Nyshchuk, the Scientific and Methodological Council operates independently and is chaired by a professional representative elected by the council members. A re-examination of the framework plan by a new NMC is causing panic among the document developers and all those who benefit from the adoption of the existing framework plan. Consequently, unprecedented pressure is being exerted on the Minister of Culture, and similar pressure can be expected on the council members.
Nishchuk, November 2014
Letter from the public to the President
Oh good
The Scientific and Methodological Council of the Ministry of Culture continues its work. On November 5, 2014, the following were reviewed: the concept for installing a 360-degree observation deck near the Sofiyivka Arboretum at 12a Kyivska Street in Uman; and the scientific and design documentation for defining the boundaries and use regimes of protected monument zones in Starokostiantyniv, Khmelnytskyi Oblast (developer – UkrNIIProektrestavratsiya).
View tower (Uman). The speaker on the first issue was V. Dribushchak, the developer of the observation deck design and deputy director of Sarmat LLC. He began his presentation with an unusual piece of information. Last year, the arboretum's management had already approached the ministry with a request to approve the construction of the deck, confident that it would attract visitors. However, Sarmat LLC was asked to pay a bribe for approval, which they refused. As a result, the proposal was rejected. The official reason given was that nothing can be built near such important structures.
View tower in front of the entrance to the Sofievka arboretum
The observation deck (BKO-50) consists of a 50-meter-tall hexagonal metal lattice structure and a circular enclosed platform, 8 meters in diameter, that rotates along it. The platform can accommodate up to 47 people. The structures meet Ukrainian and international safety requirements.
The speaker noted that similar structures are very popular worldwide. Next year, similar attractions are planned for the Prater park in central Vienna and near the historic center of the Bulgarian town of Nesebar. Importantly, the construction of this structure will be financed by investors, not the state. The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU) has expressed its support for the idea. NASU President Boris Paton announced this in a letter to the Ministry of Culture.
The Scientific and Methodological Council supported the idea by a majority vote. They plan to determine the exact location of the attraction in the near future.
City of Starokonstantinov It is included in the list of historical cities of Ukraine. It is located 48 km from Khmelnytskyi at the picturesque confluence of two rivers, the Sluch and the Ikopot. The city has a population of approximately 35, and its historical grounds cover 77,5 hectares.
The historical area of the city of Starokonstantinov
For a long time, it was believed that the city was founded by Prince Vasily Konstantin Ostrozhsky in 1561 on the site of the village of Kolyshchentsi (founded in 1525). However, in recent years, Ukrainian archaeologists have discovered the remains of fortifications, ceramics, and burials on the grounds of the castle and Dominican Monastery, dating back to the 12th-15th centuries. Scholars believe that the town of Kobud, mentioned in the chronicles, was previously located on this site. Thus, it can be considered that the history of Starokostiantyniv spans over 800 years. Until 1793, the city was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and later of the Russian Empire. It received city status in 1796.
A major historical, urban, and architectural monument, the stone castle of the Ostrozhsky princes was built in 1571 at the extreme point of the cape where two rivers converge. Stone towers were also erected at the same time, along with an earthen rampart reinforced with logs.
Castle of the Princes of Ostrog
Three gates led out of the city: Staritsky on the Ikopot River, Medzhybizh on the Sluch River, and Lvovsky to the west. A moat was dug in front of the rampart, connecting the rivers. A wooden watchtower was built in the center of the castle, from its height one could see up to 30 km away from the city, detecting approaching enemies. The strength of the fortifications is demonstrated by the fact that, beginning in 1575, the Crimean Tatars never managed to storm it.
Monuments of national significance: the Ostrog Princes' Castle (16th century), the Defensive Tower (16th century), the Trinity Castle Church (16th century), the Church of St. John the Baptist (18th century), and monastery buildings of the 18th century. Monuments of local significance: the St. Andrew's Church (19th century), the Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1807), a fragment of a mill from 1905, etc.
The project's chief architect, V. Zabolotny (UkrNIIProektrestavratsiya), presented a report on the topic "Scientific and design documentation for defining the boundaries and use regimes of monument protection zones in the city of Starokostiantyniv, Khmelnytskyi Oblast." He explained that the city's historical structure has been fully preserved. Experts have proposed six monument protection zones, developed detailed site plans, and established height restrictions for new buildings. In the first zone (the cape at the confluence of the rivers), a strict monument preservation regime has been introduced—new construction is prohibited. In the second zone, the permitted height of new buildings is up to 10 meters, and in the third, up to 13 meters. The entire historical area has been declared an archaeological zone. He noted that the team worked closely with specialists from Giprograd and local authorities.
All members of the Scientific and Methodological Council, without exception, approved the presented work, thanking the specialists of the UkrNIIProektrestavratsiya Institute for their high level of work.
Irina Karmanova, for “Ні копурції!”
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!