Vilnius: Jewish community concern over possible commercial development of Great Synagogue site

The Lithuanian Jewish Community has reiterated opposition to possible plans to reconstruct the destroyed Great Synagogue in Vilnius and expressed concern over recent project proposals that advocate for partially reconstructing the building and developing the site as a commercial venture.

In a letter sent at the end of September to the mayor of Vilnius as well as to officials at the Culture and Defense ministries, Jewish community chair Faynia Kukliansky said such a project ignored Jewish concerns and was “unreasonable” and “unnecessary” particularly given the fact that there are so many still existing Jewish heritage sites, including those used by local Jews, that need repair, preservation, and restoration.

The community, she wrote, supports

all meaningful initiatives to preserve, protect and commemorate the legacy and heritage of the Jews of Lithuania, but we do not support unreasonable projects to rebuild non-existing buildings which are carried out in the name of Jews. It seems that is what we are facing again in the idea developing over many years by certain government institutions and possibly including hidden business structures to rebuild the Great Synagogue complex in Vilnius.

The Great Synagogue was built in the 1600s in Renaissance-Baroque style. It became the center of Jewish life in Vilnius, towering over the Shulhof, a teeming complex of alleyways and other Jewish community buildings and institutions including twelve synagogues, ritual baths, the community council, kosher meat stalls, the Strashun library, and other structures and institutions. It was ransacked and torched by the Nazis in World War II, and the post-war Soviet regime torn down the ruins and built a school on the site.

Recently, an international team of archaeologists has been using ground-penetrating radar and other non-invasive techniques to identify and reveal the synagogue’s foundations and other buildings, including the mikvah.

Kukliansky wrote that project proposals formulated last year to develop the site do not take Jewish interests and concerns into account:

In 2015 the municipal government enterprise Vilniaus Planas was commissioned by the municipality’s Urban development Department to prepare draft construction proposals for the Great Synagogue under a commemorative project submitted by the architect Tzila Zak. This planning task itself revealed the client’s attitude towards the rebuilding of the Great Synagogue as an attractive real estate development project: the primary thing asked of planners was to submit a list of the buildings proposed for rebuilding, to name the rooms and premises slated for reconstruction and to calculate floor space.[…] In a meeting with the mayor of Vilnius on February 5, 2015, the questions of the Economic and Investment Department and the Urban Development Department [of the city of Vilnius], they resolved to approve the “minimal” option (to rebuild a maintenance building, the Strashun Library, the Gaon’s shul, the Gaon’s museum and to construct only a façade in the place of the Great Synagogue), “leaving open the option, if needed, to recreate the aforesaid complex to the maximum in the future.” 

She said the Jewish community had not been consulted on these plans.

Until June of this year the Lithuanian Jewish Community had never been made acquainted officially with any of these pre-project and project proposals, no one had asked us for our opinion of the idea ever, never invited us to discuss it or to cooperate in its implementation, so there could never have been any approval by the Community for any of these different plans.

It is unfortunate that the noble idea of commemorating the Great Synagogue by preserving and presenting to the public that which has survived has turned into a kind of business plan under which the synagogue building would not be restored, and instead they would seek to create several thousand square meters of real estate. The Lithuanian Jewish Community does not approve of these sorts of plans and definitely will not be involved in them. If the state is satisfied by these plans, using aspirations for the reconstruction of the Great Synagogue as a cover story to reconstruct buildings of questionable value, function and use, it is not within the power of the Lithuanian Jewish Community to put a stop to it, but if that is the case, we do demand that the project not be connected in any way with Jews, and that the word “synagogue” not be used in its title.

Funds, she wrote, could and should be used for other projects to maintain and restore other sites, including those now used by the Jewish community:

The problem is that the project as formulated would incur losses to the state and is unnecessary as far as Lithuanian Jews are concerned. There is one working synagogue in Vilnius currently whose preservation, maintenance and operations cost significant amounts. Furthermore, the LJC (Lithuanian Jewish Community) is paying for the protection and restoration of another synagogue in Vilnius located at Gėlių street No. 4 [Zavl shul]. There are several dozen more synagogues in Lithuania, most of which are on the verge of collapse. Finally, the Lithuanian Jewish Community itself is housed (under a use agreement) in a building belonging to the state at Pylimo street no. 4 which is in serious need of repair, with a leaking roof and a wholly ineffective heating system. The aforementioned project proposals entail the reconstruction of a number of non-extant buildings above ground whose functions are unclear: “information center,” “Gaon museum,” “Jewish art gallery,” “restaurant” and so on. We would like to remind you that the Jewish Culture and Information Center is located less than 400 meters away at Mėsinių street No. 3a/5. while the Vilna Gaon State Jewish Museum has four exhibition branches in Vilnius, the “Future Center of Litvak Culture and Art” planned for Pylimo street no. 4 and the former ghetto library at Žemaitijos street No. 4, which is also in dire need of repair.

Click to read the full text of Kukliansky’s letter