Abstract: The subject of the article is urban cultural symbols as external carriers of cultural memory and tools for the transformation of heritage into sustainable forms of collective identity in East Asia. The aim of the work is to identify and compare the mechanisms of visualization of the past and the institutional «nurturing» of memory in three historical cities of the region: Kaifeng (China), Himeji (Japan) and Gyeongju (Republic of Korea). The methodological basis of the research includes the theory of cultural and communicative memory by Jan Assman, the concept of memory spaces by Aleida Assman, and the «memory places» approach by Pierre Nora.; Comparative historical analysis and discourse analysis of institutional documents of heritage preservation are used. As a result, three typological models of East Asian cultural memory are substantiated: reconstructive (China) – actualization of the «absolute past» through a simulacrum and set design based on a canonical image; fixing (Japan) – stabilization of identity through the preservation of authentic material form and expertly organized restoration cycles.; Landscape (Korea) is a distributed memory integrated into the archaeological and natural environment and supported by museology and archaeology. The scientific novelty consists in the typologization of the mechanisms of transformation of urban heritage into cultural memory through the combination of «carrier – institution – visual mode». The practical significance of the results is determined by their applicability in cultural policy, urban planning, museum management and sustainable tourism when choosing strategies for reconstruction, conservation or landscape museification. It is concluded that it is necessary to adjust Western-centric ideas about «authenticity»: in East Asia, places of memory are formed not only by monumentalization, but also by cyclical renewal and ecological integration.