Vilnius Cathedral is one of the city’s icons and its calling card. Is the building’s visibly distressed façade sending a bad message about the Lithuanian capital?
The country’s most important Catholic church, Vilnius Cathedral acquired its present look – a classicist Greek temple-like edifice – in the late 18th century under the design of the architect Laurynas Stuoka-Gucevičius. Its white façade last underwent a touch-up in 2018 but since then plastering has started crumbling again.
Violeta from Vilnius believes it ruins the image of the entire city.
“Monday morning, at 7 o’clock, a group of German tourists, as I understand from the language, are already standing in front of the Cathedral. The guide is pointing to it, one of the main tourist attractions in Vilnius. But the columns of the cathedral are crumbling in places, they look as if they have been broken off. Further on, you can see that the finish on the walls has started to crumble too. Yes, the inside of the cathedral is very beautiful, but the outside should also look immaculate, and now it is starting to look unkempt,” the woman tells LRT.lt.
Perhaps it’s time to think of another renovation, she adds.
Mykolas Juozapavičius, the economist of the Vilnius Archdiocese, tells LRT.lt that upkeeping Vilnius Cathedral requires a lot of funds, which is why it is being retouched slowly, according to the available resources.
“It takes millions of euros to do it all. We don’t have that kind of capacity,” he said.
According to Juozapavičius, there is no funding for façade works this year, but some money is planned for 2025 to repair the cathedral’s plinth.
“We are looking at what is most necessary and we are slowly repairing the cathedral. [...] First of all, we are looking at preventing the building from structural deterioration. Beauty comes second.
“I understand that it’s ugly to see plaster peeling off those columns, but the Vilnius Archdiocese does have many cultural heritage sites, churches where there are always some technical things that need to be taken care of so as to prevent irreparable harm,” he says.
Funding for upkeep works comes mostly from donations and diocesan resources, with some from private donors, he notes.
“If the municipality wanted to, it could certainly contribute, but it probably has other works to fund, too,” Juozapavičius says.
Focus on other buildings
In 2018, the cathedral’s tympanum, the plinths on the park side, and the plinth of the main façade were repaired, the economist of the Vilnius Archdiocese said. In 2022, the wind blew off part of the roof, and with the government’s support, that part of the roof has been repaired. Last year, the roof lantern above St Casimir’s Chapel and the sacristy underwent some repairs.
At present, according to Juozapavičius, the archdiocese is focusing on more maintenance-intensive facilities, such as the Missionary Church.
For more extensive works on catholic churches, the government’s Department of Cultural Heritage has a programme with the Holy See, he says. The bishop decides which site is in most need of those funds. “But these are for bigger, more massive works,” Juozapavičius adds.
A new cultural heritage policy?
Kastytis Rudokas, a researcher at the Institute of Architecture and Construction of the Kaunas University of Technology (KTU), says that the priorities of the Vilnius Archdiocese are sensible.
Repair works on heritage buildings are costly and it is not always clear who should pay for it.
According to Rudokas, sites like Vilnius Cathedral, although owned by the Archdiocese, are in fact a public good. In Kaunas, Rudokas and his colleagues have investigated the extent to which cultural heritage sites affect the surrounding real estate and businesses.
“We have found that the heritage status brings little value to the owner, but the presence of a heritage site raises the value of nearby properties,” he explained.
In the case of Vilnius Cathedral, it greatly benefits the surrounding businesses, hotels, and property managers. Moreover, the Municipality of Vilnius uses images of the Cathedral in its advertising.
If the benefits are shared, shouldn’t also be the costs of maintaining the site, Rudokas asks.
“This is synergy. The authorities advertise, tourists come, spend money, businesses make money, they pay taxes – it’s good for everyone. But when it comes to maintaining the monument, what happens? In my opinion, the benefits of heritage are shared,” he says.
He also believes that Lithuania does not have a well-developed and consistent cultural heritage policy: “We do not always know what we want.”
In his opinion, Lithuania should prioritise its heritage: there are already many sites of unequal value that need to be looked after in one way or another. It would make sense to pick those that are truly exceptional and focus resources on them, Rudokas believes.
“We will have fewer of them, but we will be able to take much better care of them and they will be able to generate much more wealth, both economic and cultural. I think this is a systemic thing to do. We are a small country, we need to value our culture and everything, but maybe a cathedral is a bit more important than declaring an urban reserve somewhere in the province, which is still mostly built up with typical Soviet-era farmhouses,” he says.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
