uk

Article

Architecture in the context of socio-cultural polarisation: The case of Lviv (1991-2025)

Roman Frankiv Bohdan Cherkes
Abstract

The relevance of the research lay in examining the contemporary architectural governance of Lviv, which required a developed media component and an established dialogue between groups with opposing cultural and aesthetic views. The aim of the study was to determine the dependence of urban architecture stylistics on the moderation of public opinion and the prevention of antagonistic and hostile narratives in professional and public environments. The article examined the relationship between sociocultural polarisation and stylistic evolution of urban architecture in Lviv during 1991-2025. The example of Lviv showed that the lack of effective mediation between traditionalist and liberal positions in architectural discourse led to conflicts of values and a decline in the quality of design decisions. Based on an analysis of media and professional materials, two main phases of architectural development have been identified: postmodernism (1991-2010), characterised by a rejection of Soviet modernism and a romanticisation of historical forms, and neomodernism (2011-2025), in which modernism was reinterpreted as a symbol of European identity. Sharp criticism of neomodernist projects by the public had become a social phenomenon that had influenced architectural decisions. An example of this was the conflict surrounding the reconstruction of St. George’s Square, which ended with a compromise solution and initiated a trend toward “neutral” and prosaic forms. The practical value of the article lies in demonstrating how establishing mutual understanding between proponents of different architectural approaches can improve the quality of design decisions, avoid excessive simplification, and preserve architecture as a carrier of urban identity 

Keywords

prosaic architecture; simplification; neomodernism; traditionalism; design moderation; aesthetic conflict; urban identity

Download article

Received 21.10.2025, Revised 19.01.2026, Accepted 24.02.2026 Published 26.03.2026

Retrieved from Vol. 12, No. 1, 2026

Suggested citation

Frankiv, R., & Cherkes, B. (2026). Architecture in the context of socio-cultural polarisation: The case of Lviv (1991-2025). Architectural Studies, 12(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.56318/as/1.2026.09

https://doi.org/10.56318/as/1.2026.09

Pages 9-17

References

  1. Architectural Herald. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://architectureherald.com/.
  2. Ateitis.lt. (2024). Emigrate? Or maybe immigrate to Lithuania? Retrieved from https://www.ateitis.lt/emigruoti-o-gal-imigruoti-i-lietuva/.
  3. Building Differently. (n.d.). LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/building-differently-7076301056732717056.
  4. Controversial Developments in Lviv. (n.d.). Facebook. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/388861717938338/?locale=uk_UA.
  5. Druckman, J.N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57-79. doi: 10.1017/S0003055412000500.
  6. Encyclopedia Novobudov. (n.d.). New building, Lviv, Lukash – Ostrogradskyy – photo of construction and planning. Retrieved from https://novobudovy.com/arkhiv/zhitlovij-budinok-po-vul-lukasha-1?jbquickview=quickview.
  7. Gentile, M. (2015). The post-Soviet urban poor and where they live: Khrushchev-era blocks, “bad” areas, and the vertical dimension in Luhansk, Ukraine. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(3), 583-603. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2015.1018783.
  8. Habrel, M., Habrel, M., & Lysiak, N. (2020). Spatial change of Lviv in the post-Soviet period and their assessment by the residents. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 960, article number 022098. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/960/2/022098.
  9. Idak, Y. (2023). “Habitus of the city” as a sign of the invariance of the historic city and the variability of its structure. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2490(1), article number 060013. doi: 10.1063/5.0123187.
  10. Jannière, H., & Scrivano, P. (2020). Public debate and public opinion: Notes for a research on architectural criticism. Clara, 7(1), 18-29. doi: 10.3917/clara.007.0018.
  11. Kapsuła Hostel. (2019). The end of the summer holidays in Warsaw. Retrieved from https://kapsulahostel.pl/zakonczenie-wakacji-w-warszawie-2/.
  12. Kelly, J. (2023). ‘Life is right, the architect is wrong’: Public participation and architectural criticism, 1962-73. In No more giants (pp. 185-209). Manchester: Manchester University Press. doi: 10.7765/9781526143761.00013.
  13. Kos, H., & Kharambura, S. (2017). Reflections on a new historical and architectural work: Instead of a review. The Ethnology Notebooks, 4, 988-994.
  14. Kosasih, I.B., & Sangaras, M.A.G. (2022). Social media affect on contemporary design for architect and client via Instagram sites. International Journal of Research and Applied Technology, 2(1), 178-187. doi: 10.34010/injuratech.v2i1.6916.
  15. Krasnodemska, I. (2022). The role of metropolitan Andrei Sheptytskyi in the formation of Ukrainian national identity. Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe, 42(9), article number 5. doi: 10.55221/2693-2148.2395.
  16. Kubik, J. (2024). Neo-feudalism and neo-traditionalism as responses to liberalism. East European Politics and Societies, 38(4), 1067-1079. doi: 10.1177/08883254241295463.
  17. Lekhniuk, R. (2019). Ukrainian Christian social movement in Galicia at the end of the XIX – the first quarter of the XX centuries: Ideology and political practices. Res Gestae, 8, 84-113. doi: 10.24917/24504475.8.4.
  18. Lin, Y., & Geertman, S. (2019). Can social media play a role in urban planning? A literature review. In S. Geertman, Q. Zhan, A. Allan & C. Pettit (Eds.), Computational urban planning and management for smart cities (pp. 69-84). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-19424-6_5.
  19. Lindsay, G., Sawyer, M., & Alaily-Mattar, N. (2025). Architecture in the age of social media: Introduction to the special issue. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 19(2), 311-317. doi: 10.1108/ARCH-03-2025-0114.
  20. Linko, M.E. (2020). The Guggenheim Museum Helsinki plan as a media debate. Museum & Society, 18(4), 425-440. doi: 10.29311/mas.v18i4.3171.
  21. Lizzio‐Wilson, M., Thomas, E.F., Louis, W.R., Amiot, C.E., Bury, S.M., Molenberghs, P., Decety, J., & Crane, M.F. (2022). Do the means affect the ends? Radical tactics influence motivation and action tendencies via the perceived legitimacy and efficacy of those actions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 695-717. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2847.
  22. Luck, R. (2018). Participatory design in architectural practice: Changing practices in future making in uncertain times. Design Studies, 59, 139-157. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.003.
  23. Lviv Architects Forum. (n.d.). Facebook. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/299391490154544.
  24. O’Regan, T. (2013). Reception and exposure in architecture, film and television. Architectural Theory Review, 18(3), 272-278. doi: 10.1080/13264826.2014.875611.
  25. Petryshyn, H., Lukasschuk, H., Tupis, S., & Kryvoruchko, O. (2016). Change in dendrological composition of plantations in the park on the St. George Square in Lviv in terms of urban development intensification. The Scientific Bulletin of UNFU, 26.8, 224-231.
  26. Posatskyy, B. (2015). Genesis and problems of spatial development of Lviv (at the turn of the 20th-21st century). Experience and Prospects of Urban Development in Ukraine, 28, 142-158.
  27. Save Historical Lviv. (n.d.). Facebook. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/457798087953863.
  28. Tempestini, M. (2025). Criticism goes social: Exploring public architectural criticism through architecture awards. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 19(2), 411-433. doi: 10.1108/ARCH-04-2024-0165.
  29. Thietart, R.-A., & Malaurent, J. (2024). How do social media contribute to the emergence of “extreme” events? The rise of Tour Paris 13: The “Sistine Chapel” of street art. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(4), 543-567. doi: 10.5465/amd.2022.0229.
  30. Topdağı Yazıcı, B., Irapoğlu, N., & Güleçoğlu, H.N. (2025). From restoration to social media: Exploring the nexus of architecture, social media and information sharing behaviours. Open House International, 50(1), 40-64. doi: 10.1108/OHI-12-2023-0284.
  31. Treffers, F. (2023). People, participation and processes in rebuilding Ukraine at a crossroads. In A. Rubbo, J. Du, M.R. Thomsen & M. Tamke (Eds.), Design for resilient communities (pp. 177-189). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-36640-6_13.
  32. Vlasenko, Y., & Ryan, B.D. (2022). Decommunization by design: Analyzing the post-independence transformation of Soviet-era architectural urbanism in Kyiv, Ukraine. Journal of Urban History, 50(2), 247-288. doi: 10.1177/009614422210798.
  33. Wanderlust Welsh. (n.d.). Bratislava city guide – 13 things to see and do. Retrieved from https://wanderlustwelsh.com/things-to-do-bratislava/.
  34. Znak, A., & Znak, I. (2023). Classical order interpretation in Lviv of the independence era in view of the world and national practices. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2490(1), article number 020016. doi: 10.1063/5.0122939.
ISSN 2411-801X e-ISSN 2786-7374  UDC 71;72
DOI: 10.56318/as