Sadovyi and “his” developers: who controls 20 hectares on Pimonenko

Revitalization or controlled redistribution? The story of the development of the industrial zone on Pymonenko Street in Lviv increasingly looks not like urban development, but rather a project in which Mayor Andriy Sadovyi’s personal entourage plays a key role.

The Executive Committee has already launched the first stage – 4.86 hectares within the detailed plan of the 20.7-hectare territory. Formally, it is a plan approved back in 2018. In fact, it is a deferred resource that has now been developed by “our own”.

Who enters the territory

The first permits were issued by two companies, Tir Trailer and Lizbud, both of which lead to a circle that is familiar to Lviv.

The first is direct access to the !Fest Emotions Holding and its co-owners: Andriy Khudo, Dmytro Gerasimov, and Yuriy Nazaruk. Nazaruk is not just a business partner, but a longtime political ally of Sadovyi.

The second one, Lizbud, leads to Andriy Fedorenko, a former head of a utility company and advisor to the mayor, who is directly linked to his personal circle in Lviv.

“Forgot to name” is a standard practice

It is significant that during the presentation of the project, the chief architect Anton Kolomeitsev did not mention any of these names. Only abstract “entrepreneurs”. This “neutrality” looks more like a way to avoid uncomfortable questions than an accident.

Project economics: not only housing

12 houses, 220 apartments and 300 parking spaces at once. Such a configuration signals that the emphasis is not only on housing, but also on commerce. The office component here is probably not a secondary component, but a key one.

This means long-term monetization of the territory and, accordingly, control over it.

A recurring scenario

The situation on Pimonenko Street is not unique. It fits into a pattern already familiar to Lviv:

• First, we need to change the layout of the territory,
• then – the admission of the “right” companies,
• The result is the concentration of assets in a narrow circle of people associated with the city authorities.

Previous stories with city center properties, including municipal real estate transactions, demonstrate a similar logic of decisions.

Key question.

In this story, the issue is not the construction itself. The question is who gets access to the city’s resources and on what terms.

And while the beneficiaries again include Andriy Sadovyi’s partners, advisors, and political allies, the thesis of “city development” looks like a convenient wrapper for a much more pragmatic process – the controlled development of urban land by “their own”.