Contemporary Urban Icon:
Arbitrary Result or Planned Factor of the City Development

Due to a number of political and economical reasons, such as change of ideological concepts, building boom, geopolitical changes, etc., majority of capital cities in post-soviet countries are in state of intensive formation of new architectural symbols. Often the flaws of government mechanism of decision-making and conception in urban and architectural aspects undermine the successful outcome of the process of formation of new urban icon. As the result, not only the resources are spent inefficiently, but also there is significant damage to historical and cultural heritage.

Kyiv presents an opportunity to be a case study of a contemporary post Soviet capital city. Kyiv has many historical monuments, yet none of them can be considered its recognizable urban icon. The prospective urban icons are being proposed and constructed now. Also, due to intensive rebuilding that Kyiv has been subject for the past ten years, various landmarks have already appeared. The recent introductions into the city fabric, as well as the prospective ones, are competing with each other to become possible urban icon.

If we compare two different cities that we visited, we usually involuntary avoid anything they might have in common, and instead concentrate on discussion of their principal differences. That is why when we discuss a city we talk about certain structure or group of structures that have immediately recognizable individuality. If these structures serve as a “focal point” or a nucleus of a city, that city has a distinct identity. Of course, the cities transform overtime; yet the true “focal points” are often resistant to the metamorphosis of time. A “focal point” forms an “anchor” on which the constantly changing image of a city is fixed in our collective memory.

Many Western European cities very often have dual symbolical centre, whose dominant element is a cathedral and secondary element is public gathering space. The cathedral was conceived not only as worship place, but also an expression of unity and might of the city. However, in large cities it is hard to identify the focal point of the city, because the latter might have many symbolical centres that they appear to compete for an observer’s attention. As the result the series of landmarks or famous places merges into one image that observer will remember. In Kyiv such sequence of landmarks is represented by a number of ancient Cathedrals, majority of which are located on the steep hills of the Dnipro River’s western shore. These churches belong to the remnants of the historical part of the city. Most famous of them is Kyivo-Pecherska Lavra (the Kyiv monastery of the Caves) .

The monastery is part of the beautiful riverfront panorama. Kyiv originated approximately 2000 years ago. It had been often destroyed and reconstructed. As the result it does not have homogenous city fabric as Barcelona does, for instance. Historically Kyiv was and still remains the spiritual capital of Christian Orthodox Eastern Europe. With the collapse of Soviet Union Ukraine became independent and Kyiv now became the nation’s capital. Kyivo-Pecherska Lavra is an urban icon that represents the religious significance of the city, however it is not sufficient to become the major urban icon of the city because it only represents the spiritual aspect of the city. Since Kyiv does not have any definite urban icon, given the historical background of the city It appears logical to follow the example of Western –European cities and create a dual symbolic centre for the city. The centre would incorporate a symbol of the past (Lavra) and a symbol of the present - a new urban icon that would represent the contemporary époque, and the country’s aspirations and dynamic development. This new symbol could become the city’s trademark and would play the same role in urban setting as the gathering spaces that compliment the major cathedral in ancient western cities.

Psychologically people always identify the city with the image of its centre. For the past century the social centre of the city was Khreshchatik Street. However the street itself cannot be the “nucleus” of the city since it is just a linear element in the city’s fabric. The nucleus needs to be a gathering space such as square. When the city was reconstructed after World War two such point has originated along the Khreshchatic Street. It took a form of a square- Independence Square or Maidan Nezalezhnosti (during soviet rule it was called Kalinin square). 

The square, just like Khreshchatik Street, was reconstructed after World War Two and together with the other buildings on the street; it created a balanced ensemble - an example of good design and a symbol of the Soviet époque. The square featured human scale geometrical proportions, fountains (that soon became its trademark) greenery, and convenient circulation. As for the representation of Soviet rule, on the opposite side of Khreshchatik Street it had of massive statues of Lenin and Proletarians, and Hotel “Moskva” (which was the dominant element in composition of the square) above the monument.

Since independent Ukraine needed different urban icons to represent it, the majority of Soviet symbols have been removed from the city. The statues of Lenin and proletarians were taken away from Independence Square. Also government officials and they decided to reconstruct the square completely to make it suit the economical and political changes that happened in the country.
The Independence Square has now turned from public recreation/gathering space into the central shopping area, place for concerts and political demonstrations and of course, the intended “symbol” of the city. The square was meant to become an architectural symbol for ideas of government independence of Ukraine. The Square now features a three level underground shopping mall, a number of contemporary installations, as well as historical monuments, and the monument to Independence of Ukraine.

The project proved to be unsuccessful. It received a lot of public criticism. The original comfortable atmosphere and the geometrical balance of the square’s composition were destroyed. The trademarks of the square-the fountains, have been removed. The bizarre combination of historical monument (the arch which was once was standing at that very spot), glass skylights, projecting from the underground shopping mall, new monuments, which were supposed to represent the beginning of the city’s history and the country’s recent attainment of independence, had destroyed the original harmony and took away from the central place of the city the opportunity for it to become the nucleus of Kyiv . The combination of functional and symbolical became the main reason for absurd mixture of styles and forms on the Independence Square.

The Square still remains the major gathering space, the place for political demonstrations, musical concerts and other public activities, yet it lost an original logical urban implication and never gained any new one. It is no longer just a place for cultural activities and celebrations, nor it is a monumental place that embodies the political significance. Not to mention that cannot be perceived as a tourist attraction anymore. If the square in its new incarnation was meant to be the political symbol, then such activities, as musical concerts had to be moved to different location.
The government had approved the budget for the reconstruction of the square, as well as the proposal itself, after the construction was completed. An art council never signed the project, and the heritage conservation council (which is part of Kyiv municipal administration) never reviewed the master plan. Nevertheless in just one night the Square was enclosed by fence and excavated.  Also, during the reconstruction of the square important archaeological discoveries were made, and yet they were destroyed. Among them was a ground bulwark dated back to 12th century, outlines of streets, and remnants of a wooden house.

However, the transformation of the square was not considered complete yet. The reconstruction of the dominant element of the square-hotel “Moskva” (now-hotel “Ukraina”), was planned few decades ago, since the original urban design was not complete. The architects of the city took this opportunity to propose the new urban icon of Kyiv - the reconstructed hotel should now become also the embodiment of the new era. The building that he proposed took shape of Ukrainian flag. The building is 64 stories high (far exceeding the average height of the surrounding buildings). Also in addition to hotel the building would contain conference auditoriums and concert and exhibition halls.

Another bold proposal for city’s contemporary urban icon features gigantic public complex “Pysanka” (44 stories) in shape of an Easter egg – symbol of ancient traditions and a birth of new. The complex is part of the proposed Kyiv- city-business district. This time the business district with its landmark would not be located in the city’s core, yet it is significant enough in order to become an alternative city’s dominant element . The developers have stated that the construction will be relatively cheap  (in comparison to other contemporary European landmarks) – 1,500 USD per one square meter. Also the complex is meant for mainly commercial use to attract private investments, but the developers are hoping that government and private sponsors will buy some space to accommodate cultural institutions.

These radical proposals have not been approved for construction yet, but already received a lot of public criticism. The opponents of the head architect argue that the building would ruin the ensemble of Khreshchatik Street and nearby areas of the city. The building will cast shadow on the Independence Square (which was originally designed to receive sunlight even in winter), and last but not least, it will visually compete with the church complexes that Kyiv is famous for (particularly Lavra). Traditionally, Kyivans tried to build in such way that the green hills and church complexes were proportionally balanced and all the other structures in the city’s fabric would appear secondary.

These two proposals and the reconstruction of the Independence square represent the general attitudes of government and the architects towards the transformation of the city. These radical proposals do not take into account the surroundings, nor do they take into consideration public opinion. The emphasis is placed instead on the benefit that certain groups will get from investments, not on the importance of the capital city’s image. As the result, the modern architectural image of Kyiv contradicts its natural and historical landscape, as well as living space of the city dwellers.

Certainly, there is no general rule for creation of iconic images of a city. Indeed, there are cases when daring and haphazard projects turned into urban icons of cities. The Eiffel tower in Paris proved to be successful intervention because it presents a form of a criticism of its surroundings. The core of Paris is homogeneous: there are uniform boulevards and stone buildings of the same height. Tall metal structure of Eiffel tower appears lightweight in comparison to monolithic city blocks. The tower emphasises the beauty of the buildings by contrasting them, and buildings, in turn, emphasise the lightness of the tower.

However, in case of Kyiv, whose urban fabric is fragmented and irregular, introduction of a massive and rather unconventional structure will more likely only intensify the sense of disorder in the city’s core. The unconventional project might turn into a city’s icon only if the setting for it is balanced enough either to emphasise it through contrast or to integrate it into existing ensemble. When it comes to creation of urban icons and symbols of a city, first of all the architect has to decide whether his or her proposal is worthwhile and justified in terms of imposing itself on the city. The case of Kyiv shows that architect has to have enough knowledge about the city and enough tact in order to make such decision.

In order for future proposals, which aim at becoming the next and most important City’s icon, to come to life and to be successful, it is necessary to provide major changes in the mechanism of urban planning and development.

At first, it is necessary to develop a detailed plan, and then issue the lots of land for building or reconstruction. Such approach will eliminate the current cases of uncontrolled planning and construction, where the lot of land is being developed to the maximum without any coordination with the new development’s environment. The major aspects of the capital city’s urban development strategy have to be based on the thorough researches which are performed by Institute of general planning, not on a government official’s decision. The utilization of general strategy will also allow to control investments, so they would help to make the transformation of the city beneficial, not participate in its downfall.

The existing city urban planning institution has to be completely independent and it should be able to dictate the strategy of city development.

Also it is very important to allow public to be part of the evaluation process of the proposal, as opposed to certain interest groups. Nowadays the process of decision-making in Kyiv is not democratic. The domination of certain interest groups does not allow creating a new and successful urban icon of the capital, even if the creation of such landmark is planned.

Often, the projects that are proposed to be major landmarks and tourist attractions do not fulfill the expectations. It is not logical to rely on chance when it comes to such a project. In my opinion in Kyiv’s situation, an architectural miracle can be only a result of a carefully planned action.