Trends in dealing with industrial heritage in the context of 'second modernity'[Тенденции Работы С Индустриальным Наследием В Контексте «Второй Модерности»]

'Re-methods' of working with industrial heritage – re-functionalization, renovation, rehabilitation, etc. – are often chosen by experts ad hoc and not always conceptually and comprehensively defined in projects. Together with the underestimation of objects and territories of industrial heritage by residents of cities and territories, this leads to unification of solutions, simplification of approaches instead of their individualization. According to the author it is possible to deal with heritage in a more qualified, or 'personalized' way, if the initiators, stakeholders and projects authors have a historical and cultural horizon of the ongoing processes: what the industrial era was like in their territory and what are its specifics, how and why it is significant now and which direction it is developing. The 'second modernity' concept, formulated by G. Lehmann, U. Beck and B. Gill and including axiological, worldview components of the attitude to the industrial era products, provides a comprehensive vision of the heritage, taking into account its update prospects. The modern, mostly depressive state of the former industrial objects is generated by the 'first modernity' technocratism and requires a change in thinking towards greater integrity, understanding of spiritual and value component of objects. In this case, project proposals are more complex, and 're-methods' are differentiated in terms of technocratic or humanistic paradigms. Based on the specific project, the author briefly characterizes the specifics of dealing with industrial heritage of 2010–2020, considering the parameters helping to define the 'second modernity' concept. A conclusion is made about the main architectural, urban planning, development trends in dealing with industrial heritage in 2020, taking into account the continuous nature of historical process.