Modernists have no shame: proposing wreckovations for Ukrainian Churches even before the war ends

Architect: Rebuilding churches in Ukraine in a modern way after the war

In Ukraine, many important churches have been damaged or destroyed by the Russian war of aggression. They should not be completely reconstructed, says architect Philipp Meuser. He advocates a modern interpretation of tradition.

What happens next after the war in Ukraine, including architecturally? This question concerns creative people in the country and beyond. What about the many churches? The architect Philipp Meuser specializes in buildings with special security needs, has a doctorate on Soviet housing construction and is an honorary professor at a university in Kharkiv. In the interview he talks about tradition, a changing society and modern architectural expressions.

Question: After the end of the Soviet Union, some churches that were demolished during the Stalin era were rebuilt, for example the Transfiguration Cathedral in Odessa. Built in the 19th century, destroyed on Josef Stalin's orders in 1936 and reconstructed as close to the original as possible since 1999, it was again badly damaged by the war in Ukraine. Should such churches be rebuilt true to the original after the war?

Meuser: In my opinion, these churches have to be built differently. There is an unwritten law in the Orthodox Church that everything is always reconstructed as it was built before. But in the 21st century we should interpret churches in a modern way, as happened in Germany after the Second World War. Churches can also be an architectural expression of a modern society.

Question: What could a contemporary approach to dealing with damaged, partially or completely destroyed churches look like?

Meuser: There is a typology of churches, i.e. components with certain meanings. However, these components can be interpreted differently architecturally. Orthodoxy specifies very special typologies, such as the division of the worship space or the arrangement of a building ensemble. But then it's about the current design of it: competitions should be announced in which architects and church committees decide with the respective congregation about the future face of a church. This typology should then be presented in a contemporary, modern way. This obviously applies to new buildings, but also to dealing with damaged places of worship. There are already best practice examples that you can use as a guide. Take the Memorial Church in Berlin, which was left damaged after the Second World War and replaced with a new building. Or the Cologne Cathedral, in whose interior war damage was repaired by modern architecture. This could also provide impetus for Ukraine. There is a state and a society there that wants to renew itself after the war. This can be given architectural expression.

Question: There are tensions, especially in the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. One church is oriented towards Moscow, the other towards Constantinople. Do you see a tendency to avoid Russian designs in the future?

Meuser: We have learned from history that after a conflict situation we should not defame the architecture of the defeated or an enemy. Architecture in itself is politically innocent. It should be more about how the interior of the architecture is designed and how it is used. In Germany we also have buildings from the Nazi or GDR era. There was good architecture there too - but we repurposed it for our society. The important thing is to remember what took place in these buildings. Destruction is not the solution. Starting in 2015, there was this movement in Ukraine to erase everything Soviet, for example large wall mosaics. This is a wrong approach. Generations before us have already made the mistake of wanting to erase the past. But we should become aware of the architectural heritage and transform it. This is particularly true for churches that have retained their purpose as buildings for centuries. They have significance as a place of history and identity. We have to maintain and strengthen that.

Question: Is there an approach in Ukraine to reinvent the architectural cityscape after the war? So, for example, with consciously western forms.

Meuser: Of course there is a look to the West among Ukrainian architects because they believe that by joining Europe they can reform society better and faster. On the other hand, I also see a very strong desire among my colleagues to find their own designs. Ukraine is a multi-ethnic state. There are very different architectural traditions there, from Byzantine elements to a Russian design language in the east to strong Polish influences in the west. This is a great treasure! I can only wish that Ukrainian architects understand and appreciate this, that they see their traditions as a resource for new, contemporary designs. Fortunately, such tendencies already exist.

Question: Churches are always buildings that create identity. How can a contemporary identity look architecturally?

Meuser: By making ourselves aware of the essentials. In Orthodox church buildings for centuries, the tower has not been integrated into the nave, as in the West, but is a free-standing structure in itself. You can take this type of building and develop it further, for example by using modern materials or by interpreting the orthodox architectural style in a modern way. It is again important to involve the people who live with this building. This can create meaningful architecture and a contribution to building culture. Architecture has the power to make a changing society tangible. Ukrainian society has to find itself anew and is finding itself anew - also architecturally.

Question: If you look at the post-war architectural approach to churches from the 19th century, some of the solutions back then are no longer so popular with believers today; they are often viewed as cold. How can a reinterpretation of architecture be sustainable?

Meuser: Taste changes – so does spirituality. (Cathcon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Anyone who visits a church today often seeks reflection - is that possible in a baroque room full of colorful angels? This contemporary taste will change again. But we live in today. It's all a balancing act - with respect at its core. There is architecture from the past that we can no longer relate to today, but that tells us something about our history. Other requirements - for example technical ones such as heating and sound systems - are essential for a church building to function today.

That's why it's important to transform. A building must be able to change. The worst thing that can happen is the urge to preserve everything as it was originally built. This is also a problem with the Orthodox building tradition, that it gets too lost in the past. When it comes to church building today, we have to ask ourselves: In what environment do we want to celebrate worship? How do we deal with lighting and the creation of community? We need to focus on these points. These are inherently religious and architectural questions at the same time.

Source