The City as a Manageable System: What the Chișinău City Constitution Dashboard Can Show

A City Constitution becomes practically meaningful only when its principles can be measured and used in real decision-making.

We can state that Chișinău should become a compact, green, accessible, resilient, and polycentric city. But the very next day another question arises: does the next approved project move the city closer to these goals, or does it move it further away?

This is the purpose of the City Constitution Dashboard — a digital tool that connects Chișinău’s strategic goals with specific territories, investments, and projects.

Its role is not to replace the General Urban Plan, professional expertise, or the designer. It should continuously show:

where the city is today, where it wants to be in 2030, 2040, and 2050, and how each new decision changes that trajectory.

To test the principle, we analyzed DUOMO, Newton House Grădina Botanică, Satul German, as well as several development scenarios for the Eastern City.

These examples demonstrate four different functions of the system:

assessing project impact;
identifying infrastructure deficits;
monitoring actual implementation;
finding a better scenario before a decision is made.

A project ends at the site boundary. Its consequences do not.

Traditionally, a new residential complex is evaluated mainly within its own boundary: site area, building height, density, parking, landscaping.

But once residents move in, they leave that boundary.

They occupy places in schools and kindergartens, use parks, roads and public transport, and generate demand for jobs and municipal infrastructure.

That is why the dashboard treats every major project as a change in the urban system.

If a project introduces 8,000 new residents, what matters is not only the amount of housing, but also how many school and kindergarten places will be needed, how much green space is required, and what transport capacity will be necessary.

And, most importantly:

does the project create this infrastructure capacity itself, or does it rely on resources that already exist in the city?

The demonstration model uses twelve areas, C01–C12: compact development, 15-minute accessibility, green space, mobility, infrastructure balance, housing affordability, quality of the urban environment, climate resilience, heritage, territorial equity, economic viability, and governance.

For each of them, a project may move the city toward the goal, away from the goal, or require additional information.

If the system says “GIS required” or “insufficient data,” that is also a meaningful result: the city can see what information it lacks in order to make a well-founded decision.

DUOMO: High Density, Infrastructure Debt, and the Question of Housing Affordability

DUOMO occupies approximately 8.35 ha, is expected to accommodate around 8,000 residents, and includes about 240,000 m² of housing.

The estimated density is about 958 residents/ha.

High density is not inherently a problem. It can support a compact city, public transport, and local businesses.

The problem arises when infrastructure capacity does not match that density.

For 8,000 residents, the model estimates a need for approximately 1,280 school places and 480 kindergarten places.

A school and a kindergarten exist nearby, but they are located outside the project boundary. The same applies to nearby green infrastructure.

This leads to an important rule:

the existence of infrastructure nearby does not mean that the project created it or that it has spare capacity for new residents.

DUOMO therefore demonstrates the risk of infrastructure debt: housing appears now, while part of the new burden is transferred to the existing city.

This is not a verdict that the project is “bad.” It is a question for the city and the investor:

who will compensate for the additional burden, and how?

DUOMO in 2026: the main burden is still ahead

According to publicly available information, DUOMO is under active construction in 2026. The project is being implemented in several phases, while there is still no confirmed evidence of large-scale occupancy.

Therefore, the parameters of the completed DUOMO should not automatically be applied to the 2026 situation.

Today the project does not yet generate the full burden calculated for the future 8,000 residents.

At this stage, the dashboard has a different task:

not to record a deficit that has already emerged, but to verify whether the required infrastructure will be ready when occupancy begins.

This allows C12 to function as an early-warning indicator.

The school, kindergarten, transport, green spaces, and engineering infrastructure should be monitored against the schedule for putting housing into operation.

DUOMO therefore demonstrates the possibility of preventive monitoring: the system should identify infrastructure delays before they become a problem for thousands of residents.

C06. A large amount of new housing does not automatically mean affordable housing

DUOMO also allows us to add another important layer of analysis — the financial affordability of new housing.

Based on observed 2026 offers, apartments in the project are approximately in the range of €1,590–1,760/m².

For a demonstration assessment, we can use an apartment of about 65 m² priced at €106,880, or roughly €1,644/m².

If we apply the same simplified model used for the other projects — a 30% down payment, mortgage financing for the remaining amount, and a reference household net income of MDL 22,500 per month — the estimated monthly housing payment is about MDL 11,460.

That is approximately 51% of the household’s net income.

In the demonstration methodology for C06, the target level of housing expenditure is no more than 30% of income.

To keep the purchase of such an apartment within that threshold, a household would need a net monthly income of approximately MDL 38,000, significantly higher than the reference income used by the model.

C06 therefore receives a preliminary assessment:

↓ away from the goal — high housing cost burden.

This result is especially interesting because DUOMO’s prices do not appear exceptionally high compared with the broader new-build market in Chișinău.

The problem is not only the price per square metre.

It is the relationship:

housing cost / household income.

The dashboard therefore begins to show not only what housing is offered on the market, but who can realistically afford it.

Instalment plans make purchasing easier, but they do not solve the affordability problem

The DUOMO seller also offers another option — interest-free instalments for up to four years, with a down payment starting from 10%.

For the buyer, this is certainly an advantage.

The required initial capital is reduced, there is no bank interest, and the purchasing process may be simpler than taking out a mortgage.

But from the perspective of C06, this does not necessarily mean that the housing becomes affordable for a middle-income household.

For example, for an apartment costing about €106,880, after a 10% down payment roughly €96,000 remains to be paid over four years.

If that amount is distributed evenly over 48 months, the payment is approximately €2,000 per month.

For most households with ordinary incomes, such a monthly payment is unaffordable.

The instalment plan therefore solves one problem — it lowers the initial entry barrier and avoids interest payments — but at the same time requires very high current purchasing power.

It should therefore be regarded not as a solution to the affordable housing problem, but as a financial instrument that primarily facilitates purchase for households with high incomes or substantial accumulated capital.

This distinction is crucial for urban policy.

The market may offer convenient financing schemes, but the City Constitution has to answer a different question:

does the new project make housing more affordable for a meaningful share of the city’s population?

If the answer is no, then a large volume of new construction does not automatically mean progress toward C06.

Newton House Grădina Botanică: Between the Project Programme and the Reality of 2026

Newton House reveals another important difference — between the parameters of the future project and what is actually available at the present stage.

On a site of approximately 9 ha, the project is expected to accommodate around 4,500 residents and about 135,000 m² of housing. The estimated density is roughly 500 residents/ha, which does not appear excessive by itself.

But for such a population, the model estimates a need for approximately:

720 school places
and 270 kindergarten places.

In Newton House · 2026 mode, the confirmed infrastructure capacity created by the project itself is currently taken as:

0 school places;
0 places in its own kindergarten.

The new demand is therefore transferred almost entirely to the city’s existing infrastructure.

For C02 and C05, the system therefore shows a preliminary movement away from the goal.

This does not mean that there are no schools or kindergartens nearby.

There are.

But the dashboard asks a more precise question:

are there actually 720 free school places and 270 free kindergarten places available?

The Botanical Garden is nearby — but that is not enough

Newton House is located in a favorable setting next to the Botanical Garden.

But for C03, proximity alone is not sufficient.

The real entrances, access regime, pedestrian routes, and the amount of green space created inside the project must be established.

The dashboard therefore moves from the principle “the park is nearby” to the question:

“can a new resident actually and regularly use it?”

C06. Financial affordability

For Newton House, the demonstration uses a price level of approximately €1,952/m².

For a reference apartment of 64 m², the calculated housing cost burden reaches approximately 63.6% of the income of the household used in the model.

With a working threshold of 30%, this produces a preliminary assessment:

↓ away from the goal.

Newton House once again demonstrates the distinction between new housing and affordable housing.

Satul German: The Promised Project and the Reality of 2026

Satul German goes one step further — here the dashboard can already compare the completed master plan with the current stage of implementation.

In its final form, the project is expected to include approximately:

5,000 residents;
1,000 school places;
300 kindergarten places;
1,500 jobs;
4.5 ha of public green space.

Such a future programme appears relatively balanced.

But the reality in 2026 is different.

There are already 406 apartments and 92 duplexes in operation, along with the ibis Styles hotel and the National Tennis Centre. At the same time, major new residential phases continue to be built.

For demonstration purposes, the current population is estimated at approximately 1,350 people.

This already creates a need for roughly:

216 school places
and 81 kindergarten places.

The confirmed functioning social infrastructure created by the project itself is currently:

0 + 0.

This produces an important result:

a project may be well supplied with infrastructure in the future and insufficiently supplied today.

From “planned” to “functioning”

Satul German shows the need to monitor the synchronization of housing and infrastructure.

For major projects, future monitoring should distinguish between:

planned → financed → under construction → commissioned → functioning.

The dashboard therefore begins to control not only the master plan but also the sequencing of commitments.

A demonstration assessment of housing affordability was also carried out for Satul German. For the observed market example, the housing cost burden was approximately 41.7% of household income.

The comparative BETA picture for the three projects is therefore approximately:

Satul German — 41.7%;
DUOMO — about 51%;
Newton House — about 63.6%.

Using the same demonstration threshold of 30%, all three examples show why it is important to distinguish growth in housing supply from genuine financial affordability.

Eastern City: Not Just Checking a Solution, but Finding One

The Eastern City demonstrates another level of what the dashboard can do.

Here we are dealing with a territory of approximately 649 ha, and the purpose is no longer to assess a ready-made project, but to compare possible development scenarios.

The first scenario:

60,000 residents, 12,000 jobs, 45 ha of green space, and basic public transport

worsened the key indicators that were calculated:

C02: 76.7 → 72.9%;
C03: 66.3 → 62.1%;
C10: 45.5 → 52.0 percentage points.

The result was CONFLICT.

After reducing residential pressure and increasing the number of jobs, schools, green spaces, and transport capacity, the indicators began to improve.

In the optimized scenario:

38,000 residents;
30,000 jobs;
9,000 school places;
4,200 kindergarten places;
145 ha of green space;
high-capacity public transport

the result becomes very different:

C02: 76.7 → 86.4%;
C03: 66.3 → 79.8%;
C10: 45.5 → 21.6 percentage points.

The same territory can either worsen the city or significantly move it closer to the goals of the Constitution.

The question therefore changes from:

“Can the Eastern City be built?”

to:

“What should the Eastern City be like in order to improve Chișinău?”

From Individual Projects to Managing the Whole City

The real potential of the system appears when all significant projects in Chișinău begin to enter the dashboard.

One residential complex creates demand for 700 school places.

A second adds another 500.

A third adds another 900.

Taken separately, each may appear manageable.

Taken together, the dashboard can identify a future deficit of more than two thousand places before the schools become overcrowded.

The same can be calculated for transport, green space, water supply, sewerage, housing, and jobs.

The city can then understand in advance:

where land needs to be reserved;

what needs to be included in the budget;

what obligations investors should assume;

which construction phase may need to be delayed;

where a new infrastructure solution is required.

The dashboard therefore evolves from an expert assessment tool into an instrument for managing urban investment.

Not a Static Map, but a Trajectory

The main screen of the future system should answer four simple questions:

Where are we now?
Where do we want to be in 2030, 2040, and 2050?
Where are the projects already approved taking us?
Are they being implemented as promised?

One project improves the green-space indicator.

Another increases pressure on schools.

A third creates jobs.

A fourth looks good in the master plan, but its infrastructure lags behind the housing.

The sum of these changes is the real trajectory of Chișinău.

About the Status of This Demonstration

All assessments of DUOMO, Newton House Grădina Botanică, Satul German, and the Eastern City presented here and used in the current dashboard prototype are demonstration materials. They are based on information available from open sources and, in some cases, on working BETA and scenario parameters introduced to test the logic of the system. They are not official or final expert conclusions. Some of the standards, thresholds, GIS boundaries, and algorithms currently used are also prototype elements and require verification.

If complete project documentation, official GIS data, information on actual population and infrastructure use, transport and engineering models, price and income data, construction phasing, and investor obligations were available, the same system could be developed into a full analytical, monitoring, and expert instrument.

The Main Point Is to Change the Question

Today, when a new project is considered, the usual question is:

“Can it be built?”

The Constitution and the dashboard propose adding four more questions:

What will change in the city?
Will that change move the city toward its established goals or away from them?
What should be changed in the project to achieve a better result?
Is what was promised actually being delivered afterwards?

The dashboard should not become another instrument of prohibition.

If there are not enough school places, it should show exactly how many are required.

If green space is insufficient, it should quantify the deficit.

If housing is financially unaffordable, it should show this even when the market offers a convenient instalment scheme.

If transport becomes a bottleneck, it should show the future load.

If housing is being built faster than infrastructure, it should issue a warning.

If a project improves a district, it should record that contribution.

In this way, instead of a subjective “good–bad” judgment, we get a measurable system for managing change.

The Constitution sets the direction.

The indicators establish the targets.

The dashboard shows the current situation and the consequences of decisions.

Scenarios help identify better options.

Monitoring checks implementation.

And the city gains the ability to continuously see what matters most:

where it is actually heading.

This is the transition from periodic planning of Chișinău to continuous management of its development.