How Kyiv Will Change After the Removal of Kiosks

In recent months, Kyiv has been rapidly getting rid of its small temporary commercial structures, commonly known as MAFs. A new wave of this "clean-up" took place in May: municipal workers have been dismantling kiosks, pavilions and seasonal retail stalls near metro stations, at public transport stops, in underground passages and even in residential courtyards. Some Kyiv residents are breathing a sigh of relief — the city is finally being cleared up. But for others, this is a blow to their small businesses, many of which were already struggling to survive.

The situation with Kyiv's kiosks has long gone beyond ordinary urban "clean-up". At the beginning of the year, the city completed the removal of 27 structures on Khreshchatyk Street and Independence Square. In February, it launched another round of auctions for leasing locations for temporary commercial structures in one of Kyiv's districts, using an open mechanism through Prozorro.Sale. This is an important change not only for the capital's appearance but also for its economy. Kyiv is trying to move temporary commercial structures out of the semi-shadow economy and into a system where every structure and location has a registry number and a transparent price.

First, let me clarify that I'm not talking about a conspiracy, but about who benefits from changing the system itself. The city can undoubtedly benefit if the authorities genuinely succeed in removing illegal structures, returning pavements to pedestrians and introducing an auction-based system for kiosk locations. Some small businesses will also benefit, but there's an important qualification: only those capable of operating transparently, affording the new rental rates and working in standardised locations.

The hardest hit today are the owners of older kiosks that operated under outdated placement permits, in disputed locations or without any documentation at all, as well as their employees. They are the ones losing their familiar workplaces and, in some cases, the money invested in equipment and inventory. Some entrepreneurs are challenging Kyiv's new regulations in court, arguing that the city authorities are effectively regulating land rather than "urban improvement elements". They also claim that the actual cost of new structures may be significantly higher than the city originally estimated.

It is well known that kiosks in Kyiv have long symbolised not only small business but also corruption and a lack of transparency, where the right to occupy a particular location often depended on personal arrangements rather than established rules. The current removal of kiosks is therefore a painful attempt to rebuild the system around a new principle: "Whoever wins the auction gets to operate."

At the same time, for many other entrepreneurs, a kiosk is not part of a corrupt arrangement but a means of survival. This is especially true now, during the war, when some small businesses have lost their premises, customers or normal working conditions. A small kiosk near a metro station often supports several jobs, a family business and a stable income for people who cannot afford to rent space in a shopping centre.

For many years, Kyiv's system of temporary commercial structures operated in a strange semi-shadow environment. Some entrepreneurs worked legally, paid contributions for the use of urban infrastructure and local taxes. Others operated under old permits, through complicated arrangements or without documentation at all. This is precisely why the removals provoke such an emotional response. Entrepreneurs are talking not only about losing their retail locations but also about the lack of transparency in the new rules. Some believe that small businesses simply won't be able to afford the new rental rates and the cost of standardised structures. Others openly argue that the city is gradually pushing out small entrepreneurs in favour of larger players who can afford to pay more.

And there is some logic behind these concerns. When a location near a metro station starts costing hundreds of thousands of hryvnias per month, a small coffee vendor is unlikely to compete with a large chain.

Let's be clear: the land on which a kiosk stands belongs to the city, and the city has the right to manage municipal property. The second, equally sensitive issue is taxation. If everyone working in a kiosk is officially employed, taxes are paid to the state budget. However, kiosk owners often paid the city extremely small amounts for their locations. I know of a case where rent for an 18-square-metre location in the city centre was just UAH 2,000 per month. Considering the location, that is a negligible amount for the city.

At the same time, there is a revealing example from an auction: one retail location on a central street attracted a bid of UAH 203,000 per month, or almost UAH 2.5 million per year. That's more than all the kiosks in that district previously paid combined. And this is precisely the argument in favour of reform: transparent rental payments can generate more revenue for the city budget than the old system of small and often opaque payments.

Besides, the city has plenty of shops where people can buy water, ice cream and other everyday items. And these shops usually look much more attractive than kiosks, which are often surrounded by boxes of waste and unpleasant smells.

Kyiv certainly needs tax revenue. But it's important to understand where that revenue comes from. Personal income tax remains the main source of revenue for the city's general budget fund, accounting for more than half of its income. In other words, the capital's primary financial foundation is not kiosks themselves, but legitimate economic activity, salaries and businesses operating transparently. Local taxes also include the single tax, property tax and land payments.

Against this background, small-scale street trading represents only a minor segment of the economy. Therefore, what benefits the city is not a chaotic collection of kiosks on every corner, but legitimate small businesses that pay taxes consistently and transparently.

Kiosks represent only a small part of the small business sector, so I wouldn't say that removing them automatically destroys the entire sector. Most owners who wanted to continue operating have already either rented ground-floor premises in buildings, participated in auctions or relocated to legal marketplaces.

Personally, I don't think working in a kiosk without proper facilities for washing your hands, and sometimes even receiving wages under the table, is the best option compared with working in decent conditions and having paid annual leave. Besides, Ukraine's labour market is currently experiencing a genuine shortage of workers. So anyone who genuinely wants to work will be able to find a job.

But there's another problem. Demolition is only the first stage, and the area left behind often requires thorough cleaning and repairs. This is where the saying "nature abhors a vacuum" comes into play: makeshift stalls and tents are already appearing on the sites of demolished kiosks in various districts of Kyiv.

In other words, if the city simply removes an old kiosk without providing a clear, affordable and readily available alternative for small vendors, the vacant space is quickly occupied again, only in an even less regulated form. That's why the city authorities are trying to intensify the removal of illegal structures while simultaneously moving some locations into the auction system.

According to the reform plans, 8,000 temporary structures are scheduled for removal by the end of the year. There is another important detail: in May 2026, the Department of Territorial Control announced video surveillance at locations with illegal rubbish dumps. After all, simply demolishing a kiosk isn't enough — the rubbish must also be cleared away, and unregulated street trading, chaotic parking and new disputes over public space must be prevented.

Until the new rules apply to everyone, Kyiv will not become a well-organised city. That's why the disputes and discussions surrounding kiosks are largely about what kind of city Kyiv should become: convenient and orderly, but more expensive for small businesses, or more chaotic, yet accessible to thousands of small entrepreneurs.

Still, the most important point is something else: Kyiv has the right to remove kiosks. But a city's real strength doesn't begin when an illegally installed metal kiosk simply disappears. It begins when the habit of doing things one's own way, without following the rules, disappears.

Translation into English was created with the help of artificial intelligence.