As 15min stated on behalf of the residents of the house numbered 33 on E.Ožeškienės St. in Kaunas, Laima (name changed, the real name and surname are known to the editorial office) described a scandalous and paradoxical situation where “heritage violations, institutional inaction, negligence, and financial terrorism of residents intersect.”
Read more Monika Gimbutaitė. Culture on the margins of the education program
According to her, the facade of the state-protected modernist building designed by architect Arnas Funkas for the interwar furniture maker K.Petrikas was damaged during reconstruction – the work was carried out not according to the approved project: the authentic granite plaster was sprayed over with a synthetic layer, and the inner facade was also covered with synthetic material.
“The Cultural Heritage Department (CHD), which changed its position from ‘protect everything’ to ‘plaster is not protected,’ formally ‘does not see’ damage to the heritage. So far, the violations made not according to the project have not been corrected.
The building administrator UAB ‘Mano Būstas Kaunas’ demands residents to fully pay about 291 thousand euros for unfinished, unaccepted, and non-project-compliant works. The debts assigned to apartments, depending on the area, have already reached from 24 to 30 thousand euros.
This creates a paradoxical situation: the heritage protection institution acknowledges the violations but does not see the damage, the administrator demands full payment for unaccepted works, and the residents have been trying for almost three years to prove that first the heritage itself must be protected and the works properly done, and only then should the fees be transparently calculated,” Laima briefly presented the problem.
She provided the editorial office and the State Cultural Heritage Commission experts’ assessment explaining why such a “Euro-renovation” of their house destroys the heritage value, and also spoke about the applied double standards – for example, the granite plaster of the reconstructed “Pienocentras” building on Laisvės Avenue is protected, but not that of K.Petrikas’ house.
To protect facades or not?
As 15min reported from the resident, the 2022 design conditions issued by the CHD clearly stated that “all remaining authentic material is protected.” The approved facade maintenance project included restoration works of the granite plaster on the main facade, and specific authentic plaster painting solutions on the inner facade.
“Unfortunately, during the works, a different technology was chosen – the facades were mechanically sprayed, and synthetic coatings were used for covering. This is not just the residents’ assessment.
Read more Germany-led «frugal» EU member states call to cut proposed budget expenditures
In 2024, a commission formed by the CHD concluded that the Kaunas territorial department unprofessionally evaluated the collected facts, did not consider the approved project solutions, and the works performed from the beginning contradicted heritage protection requirements.
In 2026, another working group formed by the CHD again concluded that the department, having received several reports about improperly performed facade works, did not ensure control over the maintenance works and did not take action until September 27, 2024. In other words, the department itself admitted that its control was insufficient,” Laima said.
First, the heritage itself must be protected and the works properly done, and only then should the fees be transparently calculated.
However, according to her, when it came to assessing the damage, the historic granite plaster suddenly became “unprotected.” As the interlocutor explained, the CHD relies on the fact that the granite plaster of K.Petrikas’ house was not separately listed in the 2021 Evaluation Board act as a valuable feature.
According to resident Laima, fragments of the authentic granite plaster in the building have not disappeared; they are documented by photo records and bailiff’s factual circumstance verification documents, and under the new layer, preserved areas of the historic plaster have been uncovered.
The residents have asked the CHD to examine those authentic fragments not covered by the new coating, which could objectively show the type, composition, and condition of the historic material, but the CHD allegedly “does not hear or see” this to date.
