Show publication content!

Practical restoration was always aimed at re-constructing
the losses brought about by time, cataclysms, wars or
other destructive factors. Though of late, quite a new approach
has emerged – the realization of originally conceived but never
implemented architectural ideas: reconstruction of post-war
architecture has become one of the fi rst stepping-stones to the
above restoration principle.
Later on, this re-creation of the unimplemented author`s
conceptions has extended to some more remote architectural
periods. Thus, in Kyiv`s district of Podol (Podol – the low-lying
ground), Gostiny Dvor (the Arcade) was built to the design of
architect L. Ruska dating back to some 200 years. Nowadays,
Kyiv restorers are looking forward to re-creating completely
the original architectural ensemble of Kontraktova Square as it
was once conceived by V. Heste.
As Yu. Aseyev pointed out, this new trend in modern
restoration is quite unprecedented in the world experience of
re-creating architectural conceptions of the past. 1
But this new concept has proved to be the most fruitful
for re-creating the post-war architectural heritage. At long last,
there appeared the opportunity to eliminate shortcomings and
blunders made under the pretext of the «correction» of the
author`s conception in accordance with the so-called «fi ght
against architectural extravagancies and aesthetic frills». Innumerable
buildings of those times had lost their architectural
elements and details; ensembles had proved to be unfi nished,
their architectural designs had been inadmissibly simplifi ed
or distorted. All this had visually damaged the architectural
image of our cities and towns. It explains our aspirations and
efforts to improve the situation, to recreate design solutions in
their original.
Among the architectural heritage of the post-war period
one can distinguish between two groups of architectural objects
according to their respective levels in the distortion of the
architectural conception. The fi rst group consists of architectural
objects with unfi nished elements and details which are to
be completed without involving excessive complication. The
second group comprises architectural buildings, complexes
and ensembles which cannot be faithfully (as to their original
conception) recreated. In both cases, we have to intervene in
architectural works but our interventions are of a substantially
different nature.
1 Асеев Ю.С. Возрождающийся ансамбль// Строительство и архитектура.
– 1985.-No2. – C.14.
REGARDING THE PRESERVATION OF
THE UKRAINIAN ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE
OF THE POST-WAR DECADE (1945-1955)
SOME SPECIAL FEATURES
Nikolay Andrushchenko
FINISHING or ADDING the LACKING ARCHITECTU-
RAL ELEMENTS and DETAILS according to the ORIGINAL
DESIGN.
Some comparatively recent examples of completing architectural
designs conceived and built at the beginning of the
1950’s can serve as models in this respect.
In Ukraine, the experience of such a peculiar rehabilitation
of implemented design solutions has not been wide-spread
as yet, although its necessity is being felt.
Even years ago, the authors of Kyiv’s hotel “Moskva”,
architects A.Dobrovolsky, B.Priymak, A.Miletsky, A.Kosenko,
V.Sazonsky believed that it was high time to renovate the hotel
in accordance with its design conception.
A.Miletsky stressed the need to add stories to the hotel
as early as in 1985. His assertions of 1987 were more categorical
in this respect: The plastic development of the Zhovtnevoi
Revolutsii Square plot, its “pedestrianizing” for mass contacts
of Kyiv residents and its guests put a new emphasis on this
urban blunder of lowering the height of the hotel “Moskva”
while building it. It had a bad effect on shaping the architectural
silhouette of the city from the direction of the Dnieper. 2
In a similar way A.Kosenko stated his point of view, attracting
attention to the fact that a high-rise solution of the
hotel had sustained an old urban tradition : “Before World
War II, in the place of the present hotel “Moskva” there was
“Ginzburg House”, built to the design of architects Minkus
and Troupiansky. The building was the highest dwelling house
in Kyiv. On its last storey there were artistic studios. I used to
visit them as a student. Out of the windows I could see the
whole of Kyiv. The hotel “Moskva” was set on Ginzburg House`s
foundations, rather, in the place of former foundations
pulled down and replaced all over again. Nine stories made
up an active vertical, higher than the present hotel “Moskva”.
Taking into account a considerably increased scale of the post-war
Kreshchatik, one might understand our striving to increase
the new building`s height to 24 stories, of which only
14 had been erected”. 3
B. Priymak pointed out that the hotel “Moskva” was
to play the leading part in the system of the city’s dominant
2 Miletsky, A. Personal interview. Andrushchenko, M. “On Preservation
of the Ukrainian Architectural Heritage of the Post-War
Decade (1945-1945). Some special features”. Архітектурна Спадщина
України. (No 2, 1995) : pp.254-26.1
3 Kosenko, A. Ibid.