Global aesthetics as an (im)perfect shelter: atmospheres of belonging and Russian migration in Tbilisi, Georgia

Abstract

Since 2022, the surge of Russian migration to Tbilisi has significantly impacted the city's built environment, prompting an investigation into the interplay between global design trends and local identity and displacement. This ethnographic study examines how the “Global Brooklyn” aesthetic framework yields contrasting experiences of belonging and exclusion within post-Soviet urban space. Through fieldwork in Tbilisi's dining establishments, the research challenges the notion that global aesthetic trends lead to uniform homogenization. Instead, it reveals how similar design elements act as a coded language that either amplifies or erases cultural presence based on their tactical deployment. The study compares distinct food spaces emerging under this trend, introducing the concepts of aesthetic belonging and aesthetic non-belonging to theorize how material environments mediate migrant experiences. Georgian establishments employ aesthetic belonging by utilizing historical layering and deliberately maintaining “ruination,” reinforcing cultural continuity and local identity. Conversely, Russian migrant cafes deploy aesthetic non-belonging through stripped-down minimalism, creating spaces of cultural camouflage and deliberate detachment from place-based identity. Using semiotics to analyze materialized qualities, the research demonstrates how these contrasting approaches generate distinct atmospheres of warmth versus coldness, revealing the affective dimensions of migration spaces. This framework expands atmosphere studies, showing how sensory perception structures urban experiences of inclusion and exclusion. Ultimately, the analysis posits that global aesthetic trends aren't merely homogenizing forces but vehicles for negotiating anxieties and cultural boundaries, offering new insights into how cities navigate identity transformation amid contemporary migration flows.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.