The significance of the artistic and aesthetic aspect in the design of underground spaces

Introduction. The paper investigates the role of underground communication spaces (pedestrian crossings, metro stations) in shaping the visual, aesthetic, and socio-cultural environment of modern cities. The research is driven by the need to transform utilitarian infrastructure into multifunctional elements of the urban landscape that enhance place identity, emotional well-being, and the overall quality of life for inhabitants.

Materials and methods. The study employs a multifaceted methodological approach, including visual analysis of spaces based on categories like color scheme, narrative, and materials; a hypothetical-deductive method; sociological surveys targeting both professionals and the general public; photofixation; and graphical modeling. The empirical basis comprises case studies from cities in Russia (Yekaterinburg, Rostov-on-Don), Europe (the Netherlands, Belgium), and the USA.

Results. A typology of objects is proposed based on their urban significance: dominant (“Image of the City”); structurally Significant; peripheral. For each type, tailored renewal strategies are developed, ranging from cost-effective cosmetic enhancements to comprehensive reconstruction. The core outcome is the formulation of four universal conceptual models for aesthetic transformation: 1) “Genius Loci” (myth/place); 2) “Space – Art Object”; 3) Ornamental for extended spaces; and 4) Cost-effective color division for peripheral areas.

Conclusions. The study confirms that artistic design transforms underground passages from purely functional conduits into significant elements of the urban fabric, improving comfort and perceived safety. The proposed conceptual models provide a systematic framework for integrating art into urban infrastructure, effectively considering local context, historical significance, and budgetary constraints. This approach allows for the rational and aesthetically valuable organization of urban underground spaces, systematizing the visual image of the anthropogenic environment.

1. Gadamer H.G. Truth and method. 2nd rev. ed. Continuum, 2004; 601.

2. Lynch K. The image of the city. MIT Press, 1960.

3. Glazychev V.L. Urbanistics. Moscow, Europa, 2008; 219. (rus.).

4. Krasilnikova E.E. Landscape Urbanism: Theory and Practice. Volgograd, Oblastnye Vesti, 2015; 156. EDN WMICJL. (rus.).

5. Nefedov V.A. Urban Landscape Design. St. Petersburg, Lyubavich, 2020; 317. (rus.).

6. Vergunov A.P., Denisov M.F., Ozhegov S.S. Landscape design. Moscow, Higher School, 1991; 240. (rus.).

7. Revzin G. How the city of the future is structured. Moscow, Strelka Press, 2022. (rus.).

8. Jacobs J. The death and life of great american cities / Translated from English by L. Motylev. Moscow, Novoye Izdatelstvo, 2011; 457. (rus.).

9. Meskhi B.S., Evenko M.G., Vorobeva A.M. The concept of the settlements' urban linear spaces formation in the southern region of Russia (on the example of Taganrog street in Rostov-on-Don). IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2020. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/913/3/032014. EDN PWZXEG.

10. Shein V.V. Aesthetic models of integrating restored industrial objects into the surrounding development. Moscow, VNIITAG, 2021. (rus.).

11. Gol'dzamt E.A. Urbodesign: Design of the Urban Environment in the Aspect of Artistic Perception. Moscow, Stroyizdat, 1990; 256. (rus.).

12. Vorobieva A.M. Features of architectural and landscape organization of cities in the North Caucasus region. ARCHITECTION. 1998; 111-1U:57-61. (rus.).

13. Voloshinova L.F. Meet: Bolshaya Sadovaya. Book 2: From Temernik to Budyonnovsky Prospekt. Rostov-on-Don, Don Publishing House, 2023. (rus.).

14. Vorobieva A. Modern Approaches to the Preservation of Monuments of Cultural Heritage in the Structure of Rural Settlements. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2023; 2954-2960. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-21219-2_331

15. Grigorieva E.A. "Haussmannization" of Paris and it's social consequences. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 8: History. 2021; 1:25-40. EDN FYOZRD. (rus.).

16. Vorobeva A. Modern public parks based on Southern Russian cities in relation of the historical aspects and transformation of their natural landscape. Tasting the Landscape, 53 IFLA World Congress. 2016; 350.

17. Vorobyeva A.M. Evolution of Landscape Architecture. Materials Science Forum. 2018; 931:856-861. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/msf.931.856

18. Dreval M.R., Shein V.V. Data from a sociological survey of the population and the professional architectural community. 2025. (rus.).

19. Venturi R., Scott Brown D., Izenour S. Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. Moscow, Strelka Press, 2015; 144. (rus.).