Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―American Ukrainian Forum of Science and Education‖ (April 13-15, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – New York, USA, 2026. - 235 p.

209 permits for construction works and commissioning of facilities, as well as over 12,000 new design decisions [6]. Such indicators testify to the active implementation of electronic services into state management practice and the simplification of interaction between citizens, businesses, and authorities. Digital tools make procedures more transparent, reduce bureaucratic barriers, and create conditions for better control over the implementation of construction projects. The further development of digital infrastructure is confirmed by the results of 2025 in the field of urban planning. The urban planning cadastre was put into industrial operation at the national level, over 1,100 local self-government bodies were connected, and open access to data on urban planning documentation through a public geoportal was ensured [7]. This is of particular importance for post-war reconstruction, as it allows spatial data to be systematized, decisions at different levels of management to be coordinated, and the transparency of planning activities to be increased. Thus, digitalization acts not as an auxiliary, but as a strategic element of modern state policy in the field of architecture and construction [6; 7]. Despite the positive changes, a number of serious problems remain in the sector. One of the main ones is the deficit of professional personnel, which is associated both with wartime circumstances and with long-standing shortcomings in the training of specialists. Professional circles draw attention to the gap between Ukrainian and European architectural education, insufficient practical training of students, and the limited introduction of modern design methods [8]. Under such conditions, state policy must include not only managerial and regulatory decisions, but also measures to update architectural education, strengthen professional mobility, and support young specialists. No less important is the issue of preserving architectural identity in the process of reconstruction. Researchers emphasize that architectural monuments, historic buildings, and local spatial images are carriers of the collective memory of a community [2]. If the restoration process is carried out without proper attention to these aspects, there is a risk of forming a unified environment devoid of cultural expressiveness. That is why among the priorities of state policy, it is appropriate to