: 99-104
Lviv polytechnic national university, Department of Design and Basics of Architecture

The article examines the issue of the influence of the European cohesion policy on approaches to the urban environment and assessing its quality. A number of parameters that determine various aspects of urban space transformation in the context of cohesion policy are analyzed. An assessment of the already existing experience of interpreting public areas is given, both from the point of view of functional efficiency and from the point of view of their aesthetic value. Some directions of the cohesion strategy which influence changes in the value perceptions of the urban space are outlined. The purpose of the article is to determine the likely impact of the European cohesion strategy on the transformation of ideas about the aesthetics of the urban environment.
Three directions related to the impact of cohesion policy on the transformation of ideas about the urban environment aesthetics are outlined. They can be defined by: anti-segregation, joint action and topo-solidarity. The first of them is related to a positive reassessment of various forms of openness and interaction. Spaces of common presence, previously separated groups, become a key factor in the value determination of the urban fabric. Elements of virtual and augmented reality, as well as temporary and portable structures, media facades, etc., can be involved in their creation. Traditional means of spatial planning can be perceived as an undesirable rudiment of the urban environment. The second actualizes the concept of aesthetics as maximum variety in a minimum area, primarily pedestrian accessibility. Therefore, homogeneous “ensembles” characteristic of the 20th century are losing their value. The third is related to the creation of city-wide symbols that would reflect the nature of a new type of city-wide solidarity. They have an inclusive nature for positive perception by representatives of the entire multifaceted urban community.
It was determined that the change of ideas about the aesthetics of the city under the influence of the cohesion strategy should be considered in conjunction with other phenomena of the transition from the industrial to the information society. The ensemble and rhythmicity of the general masses, the sectoral distribution of territories are gradually giving way to mosaicism and diversity as compositional and functional components. Expanding the category of choice within the pedestrian accessibility zone, freeing the space from barriers and exclusions of various types will be combined with the desire to create universal images – symbols of a new common for all residents of the city, regardless of ethno-confessional and social background.

Shigesada, N., Kawasaki, K. and Teramoto, E. (1979). Spatial segregation of interacting species. Journal of Theoretical Biology, [online] 79(1), pp.83-99.

Kawtar N. (2019) Socio-spatial inequalities and dynamics of rich and poor enclaves in three French cities: A policy of social mixing under test; Volume26, Issue1 January. -Р. 1-13.

Vaughan L., Rokem J. (2018) Geographies of ethnic segregation in Stockholm: The role of mobility and co-presence in shaping the 'diverse' city; Volume: 56 issue: 12, -Р. 2426-2446.

Leonardi, R. (2005). Cohesion Policy in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Bachtler J., Berkowitz P., Hardy S. and Muravska T. (2017). EU Cohesion Policy. [online] Taylor & Francis. Available at: [Accessed 29 Aug. 2022].

Farole T., Rodríguez-Pose A. and Storper M. (2011). Cohesion Policy in the European Union: Growth, Geography, Institutions. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5), pp.1089-1111

Molle W. (2007) European Cohesion Policy, New York: Routledge

Cohesion Policy and cities : the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions. (2006). [online] Available at: [Accessed 29 Aug. 2022].

New Cohesion Policy. (2014). [online] Available at:

How does Cohesion Policy support cities and local communities? (2020). [online] Available at:

Tracking cohesion investments by type of territory. (2020). [online] Available at:

Radford A. (2010). Urban design, ethics and responsive cohesion. Building Research & Information, 38(4), pp.379-389. doi:10.1080/09613218.2010.481437.

Just D. (2022). Promoting Diversity in the EU in 2022). [online] Promoting Diversity in the EU in 2022. Available at: [Accessed 31 Aug. 2022].

Skifter Andersen H. (2019). Ethnic spatial segregation in European cities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Hanzl M. (2007). Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28(3), pp.289-307.

Safdie O. (2010). The Bilbao effect. New York: Dramatists Play Service.