Breaking with tradition: an analysis of post-totalitarian discourse in Ukrainian architecture and the search for a national style

This article explores the impact of Soviet architectural policy on the “rupture of tradition” in Ukraine, viewed as a key factor behind the crisis of national identity in contemporary architecture. The relevance of the topic is underscored by an intensified need for cultural self-identification amidst full-scale war and the necessity of forming a theoretical foundation for future postwar reconstruction 1, 2. The article highlights the risk of further loss of uniqueness due to the uncritical adoption of globalized styles and emphasizes the importance of engaging with Ukraine’s own heritage to shape a distinct architectural identity. A comprehensive comparative analysis is conducted on two key phases in the search for a national style in the 20th century. The phenomenon of Ukrainian modernism in the 1920s – early 1930s is examined as a powerful, though interrupted, attempt to restore Ukraine’s architectural agency through a synthesis of national principles and cutting-edge avant-garde ideas 3, 4. The policies of socialist realism and subsequent stylistic unification are analyzed as tools for suppressing these efforts and institutionally dismantling the national architectural school 5, 6. The architectural practices of the 1990s – 2000s are also investigated, characterized by stylistic fragmentation, retrospection, and eclecticism – manifestations of a post-traumatic condition 7, 8, 9. The article argues that the stylistic fragmentation of contemporary Ukrainian architecture is a direct consequence of the historical trauma caused by the rupture of tradition. It stresses the necessity and possibility of overcoming this rupture by critically reinterpreting historical experience. Suggested paths toward the formation of a coherent modern national architecture involve not the direct replication of past forms, but the revival of the 1920s – 1930s methodological approach – a capacity for creative synthesis. The need for a systemic strategy to create a new style is emphasized, one that includes the development of a contemporary theoretical base and consideration of lessons from both historical stages. The article contributes to understanding the deep-seated causes of crisis phenomena in modern Ukrainian architecture and offers a conceptual framework for its future development rooted in a unique national heritage.