Odessa Executive Committee Launches Measures to Protect Monument on French Boulevard

Following a high-profile discussion regarding the destruction of monuments on Frantsuzsky Boulevard, the Executive Committee of the Odesa City Council has taken urgent measures to preserve them. Specifically, the decision calls for the immediate preparation of documentation, the inclusion of the monuments in the state register, and the strengthening of oversight of the owner.

The decision was made at a meeting of the Odessa City Council’s Executive Committee.

The controversy over the destruction and inadequate protection of cultural heritage sites on Frantsuzsky Boulevard in Odesa is intensifying, exposing systemic failures in the protection of historical monuments and oversight of their use following privatization.

At least two buildings—a former brewery and the Provincial Office Warehouses—are formally recognized as monuments but have, in fact, been left without proper legal and physical protection.

The warehouse building, built in 1895 by architect Lev Vlodyk, is privately owned by Kablor-7 LLC, which acquired it as part of an integrated property complex during privatization. Despite having been placed under state protection as far back as 1991, the site still lacks even a basic protection agreement that would define the owner’s responsibilities for preserving the monument. Moreover, the relevant orders from the regional department of culture—including the repeated order issued in May 2025—have not been complied with, and no lawsuits demanding the execution of such a contract have been filed.

The situation was further complicated by military events: both monuments were damaged in a drone attack in July 2025. The commission that conducted the survey documented the damage and ordered the owner to develop appropriate project documentation for restoration. However, as noted during the discussion at the executive committee, this order was also ignored.

Against this backdrop, the findings recorded after the shelling appear even more alarming: according to the inspections, actions were taken that bear signs of deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage site.

A separate wave of outrage during the meeting was sparked by how these properties ended up in private hands. Members of the executive committee noted that during the privatization process, the state agency failed to ensure proper coordination with cultural heritage protection authorities. Moreover, only one of the two monuments was mentioned in the sale and purchase agreement, while the other, older one, was not mentioned at all. According to officials, this indicates systemic violations and a perfunctory approach to the preservation of historical sites.

The situation regarding the state registration of monuments—which was also the subject of a separate discussion at the executive committee—is equally revealing. Despite the fact that the two buildings were placed under protection in 1985 and 1991, respectively, they have not yet been listed in the State Register of Immovable Monuments of Ukraine. The reason for this is the lack of comprehensive documentation, which should include the object’s key characteristics, its historical value, and current parameters. In effect, this creates a legal “gray area” that can be exploited by unscrupulous owners.

Following the Executive Committee meeting, the need for urgent action was emphasized. In particular, it was suggested that the city budget be used to prepare the necessary documentation, initiate the inclusion of these properties in the State Register, and strengthen oversight of their use.

At the same time, the discussion at the Executive Committee highlighted a much broader problem: the lack of a comprehensive inventory of the city’s cultural heritage. The participants explicitly stated that, over the years since independence, no comprehensive list of monuments has been compiled, which paves the way for the misuse and even destruction of historic buildings. There were also emotional assessments, noting in particular that such situations are made possible by inaction and the lack of a systematic policy in the field of heritage protection.

Recently, an online petition was filed in Odesa demanding the protection of the architectural monument at 10 Frantsuzsky Boulevard and calling for greater transparency in decision-making regarding cultural heritage. The petition’s initiator claims that the historic building is at risk of destruction and urges city authorities to intervene immediately.

Анна Бальчінос