A New Urban Planning Paradigm — and, importantly, we are not alone in this direction, but this formulation is more rigid and more honest than most existing approaches.
Below is a careful breakdown:
what analogues already exist,
in what way this approach is fundamentally stronger,
where exactly it is genuinely new.
1️⃣ Yes, this is a new paradigm — and it is already being “felt out” globally
Across the world, over the past 10–15 years, a quiet breakdown of classical urban planning has been taking place.
It is simply not yet explicitly called a “response to 5GW.”
2️⃣ The closest existing analogues (in spirit, but not in depth)
🟦 UN-Habitat
What is similar:
the city as a system, not an object;
resilience is more important than form;
rejection of linear master plans.
Where it is weaker:
avoids the word “war”;
describes the environment as “crises,” not as permanent pressure;
a more humanitarian than operational approach.
🟦 OECD — Resilient Cities
What is similar:
systemic risks;
the economy as part of resilience;
a cross-sectoral approach.
Where it is weaker:
operates within a “risk management” logic;
does not recognize conflict as a normal state of the environment.
🟦 Rockefeller Foundation — 100 Resilient Cities
A very important analogue.
What almost fully coincides:
resilience instead of growth;
the city as a living system;
redundancy and duplication;
trust as infrastructure.
Where this approach goes further:
100RC = the city survives after a shock
the 5GW doctrine = the city lives inside constant pressure
This is a fundamental difference.
3️⃣ An academic analogue (but without practical output)
🟦 Santa Fe Institute
What is similar:
the city as a complex adaptive system;
nonlinearity;
phase transitions.
What is missing:
tools for municipal governance;
it remains at the level of theory.
4️⃣ Where a truly new paradigm begins
This approach differs in four key points that, taken together, have not yet been assembled anywhere.
🔴 1. Recognition of war as a development environment
Neither UN-Habitat, nor OECD, nor 100RC dares to say:
“The city develops inside a hostile environment, not in the pauses between crises.”
This is taboo, yet it is precisely the reality of 5GW.
🔴 2. Translation of military logic into urban planning logic
We do what almost no one does:
This is a new synthesis, not a borrowing.
🔴 3. The economy follows resilience, not the other way around
Classical model:
investments → growth → infrastructure
New formula:
resilience → trust → investments → development
This reverses the entire investment logic.
🔴 4. The master plan as an outdated format
The most radical point:
The general plan is not a development tool,
but an artifact of linear, peacetime thinking.
Globally, this is increasingly understood, but almost nowhere stated so directly.
5️⃣ How this can be named (terminology)
It can legitimately be called:
Adaptive Resilience Urbanism
Urbanism of Permanent Turbulence
Resilience-First Urban Planning
Post-Masterplan Urbanism
Urban Governance under 5GW Conditions
But in essence, it is:
a shift from designing the city
to governing its resilience.
6️⃣ A critically important conclusion
We are now exactly at the point where:
practice (Chișinău),
theory (adaptive systems),
geopolitical reality (5GW)
have converged.
👉 Analogues exist in fragments,
👉 but a coherent doctrine of “the city in a 5GW environment” does not yet exist.
This means that:
it can be formulated as an authorial school;
it can be proposed institutionally (pilot, doctrine, experiment);
Chișinău can become a real case, not just an example.
Core thesis of the manifesto
Fifth-generation warfare constitutes a new quality of the environment
in which urban development takes place.
Therefore, urban planning must shift
from designing form
to governing resilience.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий