Nowadays, urban campuses can form entire neighborhoods and be integrated into the city by including cafes, coworking spaces, cultural centers, parks, and sports complexes, taking into account the needs of residents and guests of the city. A high-quality educational infrastructure is not only an integral component for the development of universities but also a critical center of urban public life. University and city are living organisms and symbionts. Like any living organism, they are characterized by the complexity of the organization, by the specialization and close interrelationship of their parts, and by the opportunity for evolutionary development.

Games and physical activity can be one of the key elements for campus-city symbiosis. Contemporary researchers are convinced that spaces for physical activity and play on a university campus can not only be presented as separate sports centers but can also be directly integrated into academic buildings. Changing activities, movement, and play techniques help to acquire information at any age.

The research will confirm or refute the hypothesis that the Hague Central Station forms a multinational community with diverse cultures, and sports can become a starting point for a dialogue between them. Public spaces with the amenities for games and contests as a place for this dialogue will integrate the campus into a dense urban environment, make possible the symbiosis of the city and the university, and give rise to innovative ideas. The research will be the
basis for the architectural project of the Vertical Campus, including educational, office, sports, wellness, and recreational programs. The hybrid complex project will include new construction and reorganisation of the existing building of the Universiteit Leiden.

How can mental and physical activities coexist in the vertical campus of the future? What outdoor and indoor public spaces with amenities for sports and other physical activities can be included on this campus?

“Difficult heritage” often becomes a crucial point of current political and public debate in countries with totalitarian past (Vyazemtseva, 2020). This term refers mainly to architectural and sculptural monuments that were erected during the rule of totalitarian regimes, and it was first used relatively recently, in 2008 (Macdonald, 2008). At that time the question of the protective status of these monuments as cultural heritage arose due to the physical aging of buildings and structures. Often, when monuments of «difficult heritage» are markers of identity for many generations, the question of the legitimacy of their existence in a modern city does not arise. However, the values expressed by «difficult heritage» cease to be relevant, and functional and economic requirements change. Then there is a need to reconstruct architecture in accordance with the reaction of historical memory to the changing times.
This situation leads to a critical reflection on the «difficult heritage» and sometimes to the complete neutralization of its negative meaning. Often the initiator of the reconstruction of such sites is the state, and the authors are prominent architects who offer their solutions in projects connected with historical memory. This paper analyzes recent examples of interaction between architects and architectural objects from the heritage of the German and Soviet dictatorships - the Haus der Kunst reconstruction project in Munich (David Chipperfield Architects, 2016) and the Space Pavilion of the V.D.N.H. reconstruction project in Moscow (MS Architects, 2016). The paper aims to identify the basic principles of modern German and Russian architects' work with «difficult heritage» and to find similarities and differences between them. The architectural reconstruction projects of the Haus der Kunst in Munich (2016) and the Space Pavilion at the V.D.N.H. (Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy) in Moscow (2016) are compared, as well as the exhibitions presented in these museums, the statements of the authors of the projects and public discussions around them. This work draws attention to the problem of ways to rethink «difficult heritage» and enriches the discussion of it with detailed research of contemporary architectural projects.