*3.2. The Sample*

During the study, 1013 respondents self-reported their opinions by answering the online questionnaire dedicated to collecting the views of young people regarding their awareness of the history and culture of their cities, to assess the experience of social participation of young people, and the readiness of young people to join "direct actors" or engage independently in various practices. The sample was targeted to include student youth of universities in regional cities in the compared countries: Yekaterinburg (Russia, N = 465), Gyumri (Armenia, N = 268), and Timisoara (Romania, N = 279). Russian, Romanian, and Armenian variants of the questionnaire were distributed. Responses are discussed for each country, and in a comparative perspective.

#### *3.3. The Cities*

The present article discusses the data obtained via a sociological survey carried out in three regional capitals in three post-communist countries: Yekaterinburg, the center of the Sverdlovsk region (Russia); Timisoara, the administrative center of the county Timis (Romania); and Gyumri, the regional center of the Shirak region (Armenia). The choice of survey regions in the declared countries was motivated by several characteristics:


Otherwise, these cities have very different histories and different cultural landmarks. They were each established in different historical periods, information about which remains apparent in their layout and mentality.

The million-plus city of Yekaterinburg in the Urals in Russia is a classic "factory city"—an industrial settlement, one of many created in the 18th century [27]. Founded in 1723 on the small Iset River as a fortress city, and forced to defend itself from raids by the local Tatar and Bashkir population, this city has a compact regular structure, and a high density of buildings, which was expanded in later periods. The center of Yekaterinburg, once a production centre, is today a post-industrial place, with sports and cultural facilities, administrative buildings, and public spaces. The architecture of earlier periods has rapidly been absorbed by office and residential skyscrapers, and the visual environment of the city is chaotic and eclectic, although initially it had many architectural ensembles.

Gyumri was founded in the 8th century BC, in the area that is now Armenia. Throughout its history it has experienced many influences and renaming initiatives, and withstood the earthquakes of 1988 and 1998. According to the 2007 census, the population of the city was 147 thousand people. However, the population is decreasing, primarily due to economic reasons. The city lies in a valley with a slight slope, surrounded by mountains. In the middle of the 20th century, it was a center for mechanical engineering, the textile industry, and food production, which suffered greatly after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Currently none of those enterprises are functioning, and the city is not under continued construction. The buildings destroyed in the last earthquake have not been restored, and housing stock has not expanded. The development of the city center can be characterized as "regular vernacular" and displaying "freedom inside the grid" [28]. Planned quarters of low-level buildings were created by local master masons, almost without the participation of professional architects, and today continue to serve as an urban center. The city has retained its authenticity, has a high degree of recognition, and its environment is aesthetic.

The third biggest city in Romania by population, Timisoara is the historical center of the Banat region and the administrative center of Timis County. It lies in the west of the country, close to the border with Serbia and Hungary. The area of the city is 130.5 km2, its population is more than 300 thousand people. The first settlement dates to 1019, but the city was created at the beginning of the 13th century as a fortress. The fortress passed from Hungarian to Turkish and later to Austrian rule. It has flourished as a cultural centre and university city since 1919, when the Banat region entered the componence of Romania. For 2021, Timisoara was selected to be one of the European Capitals of Culture [29], however, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the planned cultural events to 2023. In the center of the city was previously a citadel surrounded by a canal. At the end of the 19th century, during the expansion of the city, most of the old defensive wall was demolished. The canal turned from part of the city's defensive system into an element of its transport system, connecting different parts of the city, and the city itself with Europe.

While the cultural and historical heritage of these cities may be itself a topic of interest, the present study analyzes only those landmarks that appear in the memory and active life of young people, thus exposing the link between the past, present, and possible future of the city through the lenses of students' experiences and memories. The collection of data was carried out in March–May 2021, when students were studying remotely, due to COVID-19 restrictions. Therefore, they had to recollect their places of interest and preferred places for gathering, using experiences or knowledge accumulated before the disruption brought by the pandemic [30].

#### **4. Results**

This section builds upon the results of the survey and socio-cultural assessment of urban spaces, presented in the order indicated by city selection. It unfolds responses to various questions: What architectural spaces or historical–cultural (historical–architectural) objects are retained by young people; what load of stories, legacies, or functions the identified tangible objects carry; which places students find attractive for gathering and spending leisure time.

The research focuses on the intentional component that determines the specifics of reference of the city and its objects. Judgments such as "In the city it is important for me ... " or "This city is for me ... " set the direction of activity. Students were asked to freely nominate the architectural objects and spaces they felt familiar with, proud of, and worthy of showing to potential city visitors. The research team retained a list for analysis, based on the frequency of appearances in the responses. Nominations are presented in the larger context of historical information, with geographic coordinates, accounting for the "local knowledge" that, even if subconscious, influences young people' image of the city, forming a positive perception, and causing the interaction of students with the nominated places.

#### *4.1. The Historical-Cultural and Historical-Architectural Heritage of Yekaterinburg*

The results of the survey indicate that young people listed eight objects among the places most beautiful and worthy of special attention in Yekaterinburg, which included seven buildings and one square, all in the city center, on its main streets (Figure 1).

The objects identified by respondents to the survey are not connected by transportation routes. They do not determine the trajectories of movement and activity of youth communities within them, thus do not overlap with the patterns of movement of youth around the city. Nevertheless, they set a specific visual framework for the central part of Yekaterinburg. The buildings include the residence of the President of the Russian Federation, as well as the former house of Sevastyanov, the Vysotsky skyscraper, and the city administration building.

**Figure 1.** Visual model of Yekaterinburg with an indication of buildings that young people find attractive and interesting.

The Sevastyanov house is an object of cultural heritage with federal significance. It is a vivid example of the eclectic neo-Gothic style of the second half of the 19th century (reconstruction in 2009, UralNIIproekt under the leadership of A. V. Dolgov). The building is on the main street of Yekaterinburg, next to the dam from which the city planting began. Part of the embankment is contained within the architecturally organized space in front of the object, where there are viewpoints and places of leisure, from which a beautiful view opens onto the building itself, the pond, and several architectural objects of different periods. The attractiveness of the Sevastyanov house lies in its unusual appearance, combined with its location that allows one to be inspired and to appreciate the beauty of this object of architectural heritage erected at the end of the 19th century.

Second on the list was one of the tallest buildings in Yekaterinburg—the Vysotsky skyscraper (2011, architects A. Gavrilovsky, V. Grachev). Its modern style has several features, ranging from the atypical height for Yekaterinburg to an interesting composition, including external glazing. The entrance area is reserved for parking, not leaving room for recreation.

Third was the building of the city Duma (city administration), also located in the city center. Designed by architect G. A. Golubev as a constructivist building, it was refurbished in 1954 in the Stalinist Empire style. The entrance in the arched niche is decorated with a monument panel made in the sgraffito technique on the theme "Salute to Victory". In front there is a small round platform with benches.

The marked figures are explained below, the numbers reflecting the order of nominations for the given place in the students' responses. The answers to the question "What historical building in your city do you consider the most beautiful, deserving of special attention?" scored as follows:


Commenting on the differences in age, styles, functional purpose of the objects chosen by students, we echo the urban sociologist Suttles who, in the 1990s, spoke about the "characterological unity of cultural representations" [31]. If the center is valuable due to its location, then the qualities of the objects outlining it play almost no role, and become simple markers of the territory.

While identifying mainly buildings as landmarks worthy of showing to potential visitors of the city, students preferred other places for gathering and spending leisure time. Squares, parks, and open spaces take the leadership in the latter category, and the respective maps do not necessarily overlap. Only three nominations were to be found in both lists (the lists of attractive or notable places and of places used for socializing and leisure time, respectively), i.e., the Yeltsin Center, the Temple on the Blood, and the Square of 1905. In Yekaterinburg the main places of attraction for youth are in the central part of the city—Plotinka (the place where the city was founded) and the Square of 1905—the main city square, as seen in Figure 2 below.

**Figure 2.** Visual model of Yekaterinburg with indication of places and spaces where young people gather.

The answers to the question "Near what places of your city do young people most often gather?" returned the following nominations:


Plotinka and the Historical Square located next to it are favorite places for rest and walks for most citizens, and provide a venue for events of urban scale. The attitude towards the architecture of the place is not unanimous. Conservators emphasize the destructive nature of the works for repurposing the factory that historically attracted settlers to Yekaterinburg. Some parts have been demolished, others that remain currently host museums. However, the repurposed space is actively used by citizens and acknowledged by young people [27].

Second on the list by frequency of mentions is the Square of 1905, the city's central square. In a previous study of markers of urban identity, it also appeared as one of the most mentioned: "The younger generation singled out as a symbol of Yekaterinburg the central square of the city—the Square of 1905 (56.0%)" [32]. It can be noted that the area is relatively small, surrounded by proportional buildings, and free from the spirit of gigantism sometimes characteristic of the central squares of Soviet cities.

Consistent with the data of other urban researchers [7,10], the list of attractors includes mainly designated places that provide opportunities for meeting in large groups, which are open and accessible at any time (except for shopping centers), located in the city center, and are uniquely identifiable within urban spaces. At the same time, these places represent increased intentionality; the building or territory merges with the space of relations to itself and to other people, and this in some cases is layered with the symbolism of the place (not always, but only if the audience is informed in due measure). Almost all the identified objects are included in lists of significant places for Yekaterinburg recommended to tourists by various sources on the Internet (bloggers, travelers, tourist portals) [33].
