In heritage conservation theory, “re-creation” has always been the most controversial concept. For some, it is a falsification of history — a “replica” that undermines authenticity. For others, it is a necessary act of cultural memory that enables the return of what was lost.
In the European conservation tradition, there is no separate term for “re-creation” — the broader and more neutral “reconstruction” is used instead. In the Ukrainian discourse, however, “vidtvorennia” (re-creation) has emerged as a distinct category, reflecting a specific regional experience of rebuilding in the wake of massive loss.
The philosophy of the project is centered on developing a new model: how delayed re-creation can become a form of preservation, even in the absence of the physical substance of a heritage site.
There are many places like this across Ukraine—small historic towns facing the threat of disappearance. Using Chuhuiv as a case study, we aim to lay the groundwork for the future by initiating the creation of a digital archive of architectural heritage and developing a theoretical model of delayed re-creation as a new strategy for safeguarding cultural memory.

Unlike most contemporary digital documentation projects, which also claim to be future-oriented, 3D scanning in those cases is typically treated either as a technical preparatory step for immediate restoration or as the creation of a visual “image for a textbook,” without a clear strategy for future application.

Our approach is based on a different temporal logic: we see digital scanning as a tool for delayed re-creation—one that may gain relevance even generations from now.

We understand clearly: landmark monuments will be preserved, as they hold political and symbolic significance. But small-scale buildings, local ensembles, and entire fragments of urban fabric are doomed—they will be demolished or overbuilt, while communities, under the pressure of limited resources, will resign themselves to the loss. When future generations seek to restore what was destroyed, they may no longer have access to the material substance—but they will have a digital foundation.

Despite all international charters, guidelines, and recommendations that emphasize material authenticity, no global institution can deny communities the right to re-create their architectural heritage even in the absence of original substance.

Our project demonstrates that even under seemingly hopeless conditions, it is possible to act proactively: to document the present in order to open a path into the future.

Ukraine’s experience follows a distinct trajectory. The large-scale loss of heritage in the 20th century — including the destruction of monasteries and cathedrals, wars, and Soviet reconstruction policies — shaped a unique field of “bringing back the lost.”
The term vidtvorennia (re-creation) became established in professional discourse, yet it remains methodologically ambiguous: there are no clear criteria for the required source base, the acceptable extent of new material, or principles for marking the “new” versus the “old.”
This continues to fuel debate, with re-creation often branded as falsification, despite its evident role in preserving identity and collective memory (see Concept of National Policy on Cultural Heritage in Ukraine, ed. O.P. Oliinyk, 2014).

Against this backdrop, digital technologies—such as 3D scanning, photogrammetry, and HBIM—have become a global standard in the field of documentation. International frameworks, including the London Charter (2009) for computer-based heritage visualisation and the Seville Principles (2017) for virtual archaeology, have established guidelines that ensure reproducibility of results, transparency of interpretation, and validation of models. Digital data allow for the measurement of deformations, recording of stratigraphy, and simulation of intervention scenarios.
At the same time, these practices in Ukraine face significant limitations. First, they remain focused primarily on isolated “landmark” monuments, while the architectural fabric and local ensembles of most small historic towns are largely overlooked. Second, digital documentation is predominantly reactive—capturing remnants only after destruction has occurred. Third, there is a disconnect between technical data and cultural logic. In current practice, 3D scanning is mostly used as a tool for immediate restoration—a model is created for a specific project planned for implementation “now.” If, for various reasons, reconstruction does not proceed, the digital data remain merely as a “preserved memory,” rather than being seen as a strategic foundation for re-creation in the future.
Thus, the current state of research reveals a dual movement: on the one hand, there is an intensive integration of digital technologies into heritage practices; on the other, there is a lack of a theoretical framework that would make these practices part of cultural memory and re-creation strategies.
Added to this is the Ukrainian paradox: at the level of laws and official declarations, heritage is ostensibly protected, but in practice, it is systematically destroyed—often by the very hands formally tasked with its “preservation.” In such a context, we cannot halt the destruction, but we can create something stronger than today’s helplessness: a digital reservoir of memory that can serve as a foundation for delayed re-creation in the future.
Our project seeks to fill this gap by combining 3D scanning of Chuhuiv with the development of a model of delayed re-creation as a sustainable strategy for safeguarding the identity of small historic towns.