Briefly
The "Ferris wheel" attraction in Podil was closed at the request of the Kyiv City Prosecutor's Office. The owner must dismantle the structure by their own means; meanwhile the city council says it is negotiating about installing the wheel in another location in the capital.
Reasons and timeline
The Department of Territorial Control of Kyiv repeatedly issued orders to dismantle the attraction; the most recent order is dated 22 December. The Beautification Inspection also drew up an administrative protocol against the owners.
"During the inspection specialists examined all units, mechanisms, instruments and safety devices in operation, the condition of the metal structure, bolted and welded joints. In addition, they conducted a test, which the attraction withstood: at the time of the inspection all units, mechanisms, instruments and safety devices were functioning properly. After removal of loads, no cracks or residual deformations of the metal structure and welds were detected."
— Kyiv City State Administration (quoting the act of LLC 'Interregional Expert Technical Center', 21.10.2025)
"The dismantling of such structures is not within the powers of either the Department of Land Resources or the Department of Territorial Control of the city of Kyiv."
— Mykhailo Budilov, director of the Department of Territorial Control of the Kyiv City State Administration
During the week several other important steps took place: on 26 December the Kyiv City Prosecutor's Office filed a petition with the court to seize and ban the operation of the "Ferris wheel" due to the unsatisfactory condition of the attraction. On the same day the director of the Department of Land Resources, Valentyna Pelykh, and the director of the Department of Territorial Control, Mykhailo Budilov, were suspected of official negligence.
Analysis: why this matters
A gap has emerged between the technical conclusion of a private expert and the prosecutor's actions: this is a matter not only of engineering but also of the legal enforcement of decisions and political responsibility. For residents and visitors of the neighborhood the main concerns are safety and clear rules for operating public spaces.
In effect we see three parallel vectors: technical assessment, administrative orders and criminal-legal oversight. When the authority to carry out dismantling is formally absent from the relevant departments, a court mechanism and pressure from the prosecutor's office are applied — a typical scenario in cases involving potential risk to public space.
The city is negotiating with the owner about a possible relocation of the attraction. This is not only a technical issue — it is also a test of the authorities' ability to negotiate, protect residents, and preserve infrastructure that generates income for local business.
What’s next
The next steps are clear: a court decision on the prosecutor's petition, dismantling by the owner or forcibly by court order, and possible administrative consequences for officials. For residents it is important to follow the court proceedings and the transparency of negotiations about the new location.
Summary: this is a case where safety, responsibility and public interest intersect. Whether technical reports and administrative orders will turn into a clear plan of action — and who will ultimately bear the costs and consequences — now depends on the court and the owner's position.
