Poshtova Square: Bringing Heritage Preservation and Urban Economic Life Together

Cover photo: archaeological excavations at Poshtova Square, 22 February 2015. Photo by Nataliya Shestakova / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0. Original photograph; displayed to fit the page layout.

In 2015, construction work at Poshtova Square in Kyiv uncovered the remains of a medieval street and archaeological artefacts. The discovery created an opportunity to rethink the site’s future: bringing heritage preservation together with a museum and public space in the heart of Podil. In 2019, the site received national heritage status. [1]

More than ten years have passed since the discovery. During that time, civic initiatives have formed around Poshtova Square, litigation has continued, and various solutions have been discussed. Yet a completed museum complex and a fully developed public space remain goals for the future.

For Midascircle, this issue resonates with our own experience of asset ownership and complex property situations. We know how legal uncertainty, conflict and deferred decisions gradually consume resources and narrow the possibilities for development. This note offers that perspective: not participation in the confrontation, but an attempt to establish a basis for a substantive discussion about a possible way forward.

Between protecting heritage and delivering an outcome

Public participation helped draw attention to the value of the discoveries. A museum initiative operates at Poshtova Square, and events are held there. In March 2026, a competition was announced for the temporary adaptation of the site and protection of its heritage. The search for solutions continues, although the question of a completed museum space remains open. [2] [3]

The city also took concrete steps towards a constructive resolution. In November 2018, Kyiv City Council supported a mechanism to amend the investment agreement, providing for museum premises and an alternative approach to reinforcing the site in order to preserve the archaeology. The Kyiv City State Administration announced public involvement in agreeing on a technical solution and a roadmap. This approach reflected an effort to bring together heritage protection, community interests and the investor’s resources. [4] [5]

Nevertheless, years have separated the search for a compromise from its implementation. The existence of a prolonged conflict does not, in itself, explain who bears responsibility for the outcome or to what extent. But it does raise a question: what exactly prevents the transition from defending an idea to putting it into practice?

Activism in our environment sometimes takes on the characteristics of a kind of “economic Drakeism”: the ability to influence a stronger player by restricting their options and increasing the cost of further action. Yet the historical analogy contains an important distinction. Francis Drake operated with the support of the English Crown, striking at Spanish maritime communications and resources. His asymmetric actions were instruments of a specific strategy.

In civic efforts to protect heritage, the corresponding objective could be a tangible public benefit. Defending access to history, preserving the memory of a place connected to Kyiv’s emergence as a trading city, and creating a museum and an open public space constitute a clear and meaningful goal. However, the ability to stop one course of action and the ability to implement another are different things.

Conversations with civic organisations revealed a gap between the desire to create a museum and the practical tools for achieving that goal. The commitment to preserving heritage is there, but those conversations presented neither confirmed funding nor a specific fundraising plan with defined sources, amounts and timelines.

This does not mean that no such work exists at all. But against the backdrop of years of confrontation, the absence of an accessible, clear plan creates an impression that the struggle risks becoming an end in itself, while the museum’s creation is deferred indefinitely.

This is not an assessment of anyone’s motives. It is a question about the relationship between civic influence and the outcome it is intended to achieve.

A museum begins with an idea, but operates through resources

A museum does not come into existence simply because people wish to create it, or as a result of years of litigation. A court decision can protect a right or define the boundaries of what is permissible. On its own, however, it cannot replace design, funding, construction and subsequent management.

Archaeological research, conservation, structural reinforcement, drainage, exhibition design and accessibility all require funding. Once the museum opens, recurring costs remain: staff, security, engineering systems and care of the artefacts.

A museum can be free to visit. Its creation and operation are always paid for by someone.

At the same time, state support for an idea is not the same as the ability to finance it. During wartime, when defence and keeping the country functioning are the overriding priorities, relying solely on future public funding is not a sufficient basis for delivering such a project.

This does not diminish its cultural significance. On the contrary, an understanding of our historical continuity, our origins and Kyiv’s place in our history is particularly important now. But the importance of the goal does not remove the need for an economic foundation.

Article 13 of Ukraine’s Law on Museums and Museum Affairs provides for museum funding from public budgets, charitable contributions and other sources not prohibited by law. An economic model can combine public support, philanthropy, grants and permitted revenue from museum activities. [6]

Assessing its viability requires specific amounts, funding schedules and clarity about who will keep the site operating after it opens. A list of potential donors or the hope of attracting a future investor does not yet provide that certainty.

Economic life within the framework of heritage protection

Returning a historic site to economic life does not mean relegating its cultural value to a secondary position, or treating commercial interest as justification for any intervention.

Ukraine’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage defines protection as a system of legal, financial, technical and other measures encompassing preservation, use, conservation and adaptation for museum purposes. This provides a basis for considering cultural value and the future life of a place within a single model. [7]

Poshtova Square also has a specific legal framework. Verkhovna Rada Resolution No. 2492-VIII of 5 July 2018 set out heritage preservation measures, recommended establishing a national museum and called for broad public discussion of the next steps. The resolution also restricted construction work pending fulfilment of specified conditions, with an exception for approved preservation and protection work. [8]

Any restoration scenario therefore requires an assessment of its compliance with the heritage protection regime, legislation and court decisions. Bringing in private funding does not remove these restrictions—just as protected status does not remove the need for funding.

What could a practical way forward look like?

A starting point could be a joint assessment of the current situation: rights over the individual assets, contractual obligations, technical risks, restrictions and the cost of urgent preservation measures. This could give participants a shared factual basis for negotiations.

The next step could involve comparing several legally permissible funding and management scenarios. Each could set out completion costs, annual operating expenses, confirmed and potential funding sources, timelines and public access arrangements.

On that basis, participants could discuss specific agreements: who funds each phase, who carries out the work, who operates the museum, how expenditure is monitored and how public access is secured. An equally important question is what happens if a particular funding source fails to materialise or a participant does not fulfil their commitments.

A separate phase of urgent preservation work could protect the heritage while a long-term solution is being developed. After all, the time spent agreeing on a model also creates risks and costs.

Such a discussion could explore a model in which the city gains an improved public space, the community gains access to its heritage, the museum receives sustainable support, and funding partners have clear terms for their participation.

For Midascircle, returning an asset to economic life means restoring its ability to create value and secure the resources needed for its continued existence. At Poshtova Square, that value encompasses history, education, tourism, public space and confidence in the city.

After more than ten years of confrontation, the outcome could be not another round of struggle, but a museum, preserved heritage and a completed public space in the heart of Podil. The question for a shared discussion is what lawful, funded and deliverable mechanism could bring that outcome closer.

Sources and legal framework

1. Suspilne, 21 May 2024: legal audit and museum development
2. PRAGMATIKA.MEDIA: Poshtova Reboot festival, 2025
3. Khmarochos, 25 March 2026: temporary adaptation competition
4. Kyiv City State Administration, 29 November 2018: museum and roadmap
5. Kyiv City Council, 29 November 2018: investment agreement
6. Law of Ukraine on Museums and Museum Affairs, Article 13
7. Law of Ukraine on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Article 1
8. Verkhovna Rada Resolution No. 2492-VIII, 5 July 2018