UkraineWorld asked Julian Chaplinsky, architect. Key points in our brief, #UkraineWorldAnalysis:
Since architectural styles are acquired, it is difficult to predict how cities will be rebuilt after the war. In most cases, cheap and low-quality architecture is built after a war, and Ukraine will not evade this.
It will take a while for investments to reach areas that are unfit for living, and let's not forget the political aspect of those who will be in power and the values they share are also important.
Of course, joining the EU provides more chances for quality urban planning, as the European community actively advocates decentralisation, community engagement, participation, better technology and sustainable mobility. Another aspect is demographics: if there are fewer people in cities, the need for construction is minimal.
In general, it is widely acknowledged that low-rise buildings and the expansion of public transport are needed.
We can imagine future cities by drawing on past experiences and convening roundtables of interdisciplinary discussions in the present. Each war was unique, and we can't say how bad it was in Sarajevo versus how good it was in Dresden. However, we can use a comparative perspective to examine why Leipzig and Dresden developed in such disparate ways. What mistakes were made in Dresden but not in Leipzig?
Both historic cities were destroyed and ruled by the Soviets, and it is pivotal to know how they dealt with modernist architecture, restoring the river, and stepping on the rake of strong economic managers (which is why Dresden was excluded from UNESCO's World Heritage List due to the building of a four-lane bridge in the heart of the cultural landscape which meant that the property failed to keep its outstanding universal value as inscribed).
In particular, whether it is worth giving people private ownership of apartments, because in Dresden the households were given, and then what to do with these houses, for which a person has nothing to pay.
In Leipzig, for example, apartments were given to long-term and low-cost renters rather than private owners. When it comes to rebuilding the housing stock, the city is the owner and thus bears responsibility. The city is not a business that requires quick cash.
And yet, there are fears of the construction of post-war "anthills", which are based on the lack of a historical perspective of reconstruction. We had unsuccessful examples in the past, such as the project of urban planning reform No. 5655, which was focused on certain circles of interest and the political rejection received from the European Union.
This reform was aimed at transforming the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate of Ukraine, which was a corrupt institution. This reform was intended to be a digitalization of the urban planning sphere, implying greater accessibility and accountability. Indeed, several tools have already improved the situation and are in use, such as electronic signatures of process participants, personal responsibility, the impossibility of reselling apartments twice or three times and submitting different projects to different authorities. But this is an improvement in procedures, not urban planning reform.
In the context of urban planning, the negative note is the lack of influence of local governments on what is being built in their cities
. Thus, builders and developers have complete control over what they build, how they build it, and when they build it.
The European Commission's resolution, which did not recommend that President Zelensky sign the law, which had already been voted on twice in the Rada, put an end to this.
The goal of the city is to focus on people. Previously, the focus was as follows: the city's General Plan was prepared, and the state monopolistically decided what would be built where, as was the case in Soledar. In today's world, we live in a free market society where the role of the state is diminishing. European politics has learnt to separate big business from politics.
The government can help with roads, engineering networks, invest in sewage systems, and nuclear power plants, i.e. macro projects. Instead, when we talk about cities that have been devastated, we must consider whether it is worthwhile to rebuild them, given that former inhabitants will potentially not return. That is, if there are no carriers of the city identity left, then there is no point in rebuilding it in its current state.
Cities in Europe after the Second World War were rebuilt mainly around spiritual values and the historical environment.
In Ukraine, we see the example of Lviv, which changed its population by 90% after the Second World War. But the architecture that had been built for centuries influenced people and their mentality. The Jewish population was shot by the Germans, the Poles fled, people from the surrounding villages and the Russians settled in Lviv.
However urban sustainability continued to make sense. There must be a synergy of experiences - historical and economic. In the case of a deprived village that has lost its meaning, it is not worth restoring; these ruins can be preserved as a war monument. When people say that it is not the right time to think about this, I always remember the story of Polish architects who were in Nazi camps and were drawing up plans for the reconstruction of Warsaw. We need to avoid the dictatorship of quick fixes.
From the ethical point of view, everything that can still be restored should be restored, everything that can be preserved as a ruin should be preserved. I have little hope that we will be able to restore the historical heritage.
In Lviv, for example, there are dozens of Polish churches that are melting before our eyes and are unnecessary monuments of Baroque, Art Deco, and Neo-Romanticism. There is the church of Bernardo Meretyn, who built the UNESCO monument St George's Cathedral.
The community lacks the funds to rebuild it and feels powerless because a new Greek Catholic church has been built nearby. And who needs a Roman Catholic church in a village where there are no Roman Catholics? When you suggest adapting it for a new function, as they do in Europe - for a library, gallery, or something else, the people say it's not possible as it is a sacred and consecrated place.
