RETHINKING CONCEPTS IN THE ARCHITECTURE OF PHYSICAL CULTURE FACILITIES: THE CONCEPT OF A «SPORTS AND RECREATION COMPLEX» IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN FORMS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

Abstract

The study clarifies the terminology used to define the architecture of physical culture and sports facilities in order to avoid contradictions between the theoretical principles of designing sports and recreation complexes and cases that arise in practice. The research methods. Comparative analysis methods are used to reveal the positions of regulatory and legal sources that limit the definition of physical culture, health, and sports facilities in the context of current developments. Scientific approaches to defining the «multifunctionality» of architectural structures in the context of international and domestic experience and to interpreting the concepts of «physical culture and health activities» and «sports activities» are analyzed and systematized. Research results. Potential morphological shifts in modern architectural structures, which are considered as complex multilevel systems, the identity of which is opposed to traditional 20th-century morphologies, have been identified. It has been established that the current regulatory and legal definitions do not reflect the essence of modern forms of activity, resulting in a gap between the architectural and planning organization of objects and their functional purpose. The main transformations in the formative function of this architecture are identified. First of all, this concerns the growth in the number of sports, which necessitates a review of the typology of architectural elements in accordance with their specifics. The blurring of the boundaries between professional and amateur levels and the «duality» of certain practices (yoga, crossfit, boxing) are noted, given their definition as sports – competitive or physical culture and health, i.e., predominantly recreational. Digitalization is also worth mentioning. As a result of these processes, we see an expansion of the concept of «competitiveness». Conclusions. Based on the analysis, a new term is proposed – «sports and recreation block» which more accurately describes an architectural object within the structure of a more complex architectural formation – a multifunctional complex – and fully reflects its functional purpose. The block is defined not by the status of the user or the formal, permanent purpose of the structure, but by the function of the space as an environment for the implementation of sports and recreation–a broad form of activity, taking into account the requirements for the flexibility of space and architectural structure in general. This approach allows us to overcome the limitations of the outdated classification by type of activity (“sports” or “physical culture and health” facilities) and form the basis for reviewing and developing new relevant architectural forms of typologies.