The year 2026 has been declared the Year of Urban Development and Architecture in Azerbaijan. Baku, as the country's largest metropolis and architectural landmark, is currently at a point where further growth requires not only large-scale projects but also a deeper understanding of sustainability, human scale, and urban identity. Amid climate challenges, active development, and the need to preserve its rich historical heritage, Baku is increasingly viewed not simply as a developing city, but as a space for finding modern, balanced urban development solutions. In this context, international approaches that help combine sustainability, comfortable living, and cultural identity are particularly valuable.

Michael Mehaffy, an international expert on sustainable urban development, researcher and consultant, executive director of International Making Cities Livable, an international platform uniting specialists in the creation of comfortable and human-centered cities, and a senior research fellow affiliated with Delft University of Technology, one of Europe's leading technical universities in the field of architecture, urban planning and sustainable development, answers AZERTAC's questions.

- In light of Azerbaijan declaring 2026 the Year of Urbanism and Architecture, how do you assess the role of sustainable urban development in shaping modern cities? What practices do you consider most relevant for countries undergoing active urban development?

- Unfortunately, we are still far from sustainable urban development -- or sustainability more generally. But the good news is that we have a much clearer idea what must be done. We also understand that it's not just responding to negatives, but also seizing the opportunities for positive development and improved quality of life.

The improvements needed aren't only in technological changes -- things like more efficient and more renewable energy and water systems (though those are needed). They are more fundamentally in how we organize the city, how we can give ourselves greater choice in how to get around, and the things we can access and enjoy nearby - like parks, shops, institutions, workplaces and so on. This means improving the layout and pattern of the city, the way streets and paths are laid out, the way public spaces and other elements are distributed throughout the city.

- Azerbaijan has a rich historical and architectural heritage. How do you think modern urban projects can combine innovation with the preservation of the cultural and historical context of cities?

- This is a challenge for many cities around the world today. On the one hand, it will be important to preserve and regenerate existing heritage structures, both to preserve cultural resources, and to maintain economic assets (e.g. for tourism) and ecological benefits (e.g. often lower energy demand and impact on natural resources). On the other hand, there is the question to what extent new forms from other regions should be allowed to dominate, or, perhaps better, should be locally adapted and infused with more of that local identity. Research is showing that this is very important for quality of life, and ultimately for economic sustainability too. (If our city looks like every other "modern" city, it will not compete well economically with all the other similar-looking cities.) This is a challenge for many of us today in a globalizing world, as we seek a better balance with a more authentic expression of our own local identity and local culture.

- You often emphasize the importance of citizen engagement in urban planning processes. What public participation strategies could be useful for Azerbaijani cities to improve the quality of the urban environment and meet the needs of residents?

- Yes, there are really two ways of engaging citizens. One is to ask them for "input" -- for comments about a project or process. That can be very superficial and even deceptive, since their input is often ignored, or it comes too late. The other approach is to truly involve and empower them, within roles that are appropriate to the scale of their homes and neighborhoods. This principle is sometimes called "subsidiarity" -- a kind of "bottom-up principle" for citizen participation.

A key point is that citizens are asked to be proactive, not reactive. They aren't asked to comment on projects that are already under way, where they often oppose them by stating, "Not In My Back Yard" (this is called a "NIMBY" response). Nor do we expect them to blindly support any project in the name of abstract criteria, like number of housing units - sometimes called "Yes In My Back Yard" or a "YIMBY" position. Instead, we ask them to join into a multi-scale process, where they proactively help to identify what they want and WILL support - an approach we call "QUIMBY" or "QUality In My Back Yard." (The King's Foundation in London has a similar program called "Beauty In My Back Yard," or "BIMBY".) It works with the citizens, but engages them in becoming responsible collaborators -- not just people who react, and throw out opinions that are often poorly thought out.

This approach also requires a multi-scale process, where different forms of participatory governance and action occur at different scales of neighborhood, district and city. That's sometimes known as "polycentric governance," an approach proposed by authors like Elinor Ostrom and Jane Jacobs. It may sound complicated, but really it's a natural way of organizing city governance. I like what Jacobs said about this: "Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody".

- Azerbaijan faces climate challenges, especially in large cities like Baku. What modern approaches to urban infrastructure design can help adapt to climate change and increase urban resilience?

- This is a challenging time for all cities, with growing threats to safety and livability. Yet each city and town is unique, with local conditions that must be accommodated. That means that our responses have to be very context-dependent. I think we need to be wary of globalized and one-size-fits-all approaches.

That said, we can certainly learn from one another across the globe, and share effective tools and strategies that can be locally adapted. This follows the old maxim, "think globally, act locally." Our team uses the "pattern language" methodology, first developed for architecture but then extended into software, engineering, management, and other disciplines. It combines universal patterns of solutions with local context-dependent patterns, to get the best combinations of the local and the global.

The other critical issue is that we take a "joined-up" response, and that we don't deal with the different aspects as if they were in different "silos" or isolated domains. Pattern languages help here too, since the patterns are all hyperlinked together, so that they function in a more coordinated, unified way. That helps to avoid the too-common "unintended consequences" of making gains in one area, only to see them erased in another.

We have done a number of local pattern languages in a number of countries -- for example, for thermal comfort, for urban resilience, for public space improvements, for COVID adaptation, and so on. Some examples of patterns include urban greening, reducing unnecessary paving, creating stormwater infiltration gardens, adding cooling water features, planning wind breaks, and other patterns that might be appropriate for Azerbaijan (but again, would need to be locally adapted).

We will be working with UN-Habitat at the World Urban Forum on pattern languages for implementing the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. As you may know, those linked documents were adopted by acclamation by all 193 member countries of the United Nations. However, as many of us recognize, implementation remains a huge task ahead. We think the pattern language methodology is one important toolkit for local implementation, preserving the best of shareable solutions but avoiding the one-size-fits-all approaches, and the "siloed" approaches. It will be interesting to consider whether Baju and/or Azerbaijan as a whole might want to consider this approach. To be continued!

- Looking ahead 10-20 years, how do you envision the future of Azerbaijani cities in terms of design, sustainability, and human life? What steps need to be taken today to achieve this goal?

- You are wise to look ahead, since often the things that change most slowly also have the longest sustained impact. Among those are the street networks, and the question of how well-connected they are, how walkable and supportive of life at the scale of the buildings. Related to that are infrastructure extensions that support more compact, human-scale development. (Not just "density" in the abstract, or tall buildings -- which often don't achieve the human-scale compactness we need, for a number of perhaps surprising reasons.) Good planning can "future-proof" -- adding the capacity for new forms of transportation like autonomous vehicles, new forms of transit, new buildings that are compact and human-scale, and so on. We can "set the table" for more livable cities as we grow.

We can also "set the table" with reforms to our codes and laws, allowing and encouraging more compact and human-scale development. In the USA in particular, we have allowed our zoning to create very unsustainable places -- monocultures of housing without any other amenities, largely unwalkable, very low density and too dependent on cars. And that creates a whole set of other problems - huge parking lots, 6 to 8 spaces for every car, wide roads, more pavement and runoff and air quality issues, and so on and so on. And it's all very expensive, and there are hidden expenses to the taxpayer in the long run. So we have been reforming these old codes, creating new kinds of codes and regulations that can do a better job of supporting more livable kinds of development, while addressing the practical issues that attract people to cars in the first place -- better mobility, convenience and so on.

Affordability is another key aspect of it. Our codes and regulations drive up the cost of housing and other buildings, and that requires reform. But we also have to remember that "affordability" is not just in the cost of the building, but the cost of living there. (Say, if we can only get anywhere by owning and operating a car, or if our homes are inefficient and utility costs are much higher than otherwise.) Like the other challenges, we have to see affordability as requiring a "joined-up" response.

The other point is the one you touched on - the role of heritage. New research shows that we love the old buildings of our heritage not just because they're old, or they're our traditions, but because they embody important characteristics that we humans need deeply. Among those is the experience of beauty -- not just the exciting beauty of the new and sleek and artistic, but the deep beauty of the forms of nature, and human nature and history. One of the biggest mistakes we planners and architects have made was to dismiss these structures as "out of date" -- when, from a sustainability point of view, it seems to be many of the new buildings that fall quickly out of date, and don't sustain. (If we want sustainable buildings, they will need to be felt worthy of being sustained...) I think we have to face the reality that sustainability requires that we recognize a kind of "collective intelligence' in our own traditional buildings and towns, and learn to do a better job of tapping into that timeless wisdom. And then, yes, we can add the new technology, and all the other things we will need.

 

Tamilla Mammadova

 

AZERTAC

2025, January 5