The City That Already Exists

We tend to associate urban development with the arrival of something new. New neighbourhoods, roads, public spaces, parks and waterfronts are the most visible signs of change. But an existing city has another, equally important task: to recognise what is already valuable and find ways to preserve it as the city develops.

A city’s natural structure takes decades, sometimes centuries, to evolve. It encompasses bodies of water, topography, mature green spaces, natural areas, historic landscapes and the connections between them.

If we begin designing without understanding this system as a whole, we may create high-quality individual projects while simultaneously destroying the very features that sustain the resilience of the wider area.

That is why I see the urban ecological framework first and foremost as a tool for conservation. It allows us to understand the city as a living spatial system in which natural and historic connections are no less valuable than buildings.

We have previously explored how a functional approach can reveal the potential of the existing urban environment:

Functions That Transform the Value of Urban SpaceThe same urban object holds value for architects, developers, manufacturers, government authorities and residents alike. Yet each views it from their own professional perspective. As a result, most professional decisions revolve around the object itself rather than the opportunities it creates.mag.humodoc.com

From Natural Cores to a Connected System

A park, square, waterfront or green courtyard does not, on its own, make up a resilient natural system. An urban ecological framework depends not only on individual areas, but also on natural cores and the connections between them.

These cores may include large natural and recreational areas, bodies of water, woodlands, historic landscapes and other spaces of high ecological value. Just as important are the corridors that connect them. Work on an urban ecological framework therefore begins with a systematic, city-wide analysis: identifying existing natural cores, assessing their condition and value, identifying potential new cores and mapping the connections between them.

The focus shifts from simply measuring the area of green space to assessing its quality, functionality and connectivity.

That is the difference between greening and an ecological framework: the former adds green spaces, while the latter brings them together into a connected system.

Research Before Decisions

The natural structure of a city should not be considered only after buildings, roads and functional zones have already been planned.

On the contrary, the findings of ecological and spatial analysis should inform decisions about how an area is to develop.

Analysis helps establish where construction is possible, which natural areas need to be preserved or restored, and where a new green corridor should be created. These decisions should be made before an individual project is designed, not afterwards. This approach does not sideline architecture. It helps architecture respond more precisely to its setting.

A Historic City Cannot Be Designed from Scratch

The more deeply we analyse an existing city, the clearer it becomes that its natural framework cannot be considered separately from its history.

A place’s history does not begin when a new architect, investor or developer arrives. Natural processes, historic routes, water systems, green spaces, public spaces and established patterns of development were already in place long before we arrived.

That is why retrospective analysis is one of the most important tools in urban planning.

A city’s natural and historic structures rarely exist independently. Within the urban fabric, they often form a single, interconnected landscape.

Water is bound up with the history of settlement in an area. Mature green spaces are connected to the city’s planning structure. Public spaces are linked to historic routes and centres.

Preserving the natural structure can therefore also mean preserving the city’s identity.

From Map to Planning Documents

Even a well-developed urban ecological framework remains vulnerable if it exists only as a concept or an attractive map.

It needs to be incorporated into the master plan, land-use and development regulations, and detailed planning and land-management documents.

Otherwise, a gap appears: the city recognises the value of a natural area, but that value receives insufficient protection when planning decisions are made.

Areas of high ecological value are particularly vulnerable when they lack formal protected status. In such cases, everything can depend on the individual project, the client and the team involved.

That is not enough to protect a natural system that has taken decades to develop.

What we want to preserve must be enshrined not only in a concept, but also in the rules.

From Individual Projects to a National Framework

The next step is to move beyond individual cities and projects and establish a systematic approach at national level. Mechanisms are needed to protect natural areas that do not yet have formal protected status.

We also need legal instruments that make it possible to create new parks, squares, boulevards, natural cores and connections between them as part of comprehensive development schemes.

Until such a system is in place, too much will depend on individual projects.

A city’s natural structure cannot depend on short-term investment cycles. Cities need rules that will outlast any single project.

Read more about the economic and investment potential of connected natural infrastructure in our article:

When Ecology Becomes EconomicsOn 2 September, as part of Aquatherm Almaty, HD magazine held a panel discussion bringing together representatives of the public sector, architects, urban planners, engineers, and experts in green construction and finance. The central question was how to turn individual environmental solutions into a system with measurable impact, clear costs and a viable financing mechanism.mag.humodoc.com

Preservation Does Not Mean Banning Development 

he aim is not to halt construction or freeze a city in time. Cities need to develop, but not at the cost of destroying what is already valuable.

An urban ecological approach helps identify the areas that must be preserved, the spaces that can be transformed, the connections that need to be restored and the zones where new construction is possible without undermining the wider system.

An ecological framework is therefore not a constraint on development. It provides essential information for architects, urban planners, developers, investors and public authorities. Ideally, it shows how a particular place can develop without destroying what already works.

First, Do No Harm

I believe contemporary urban planning needs to recover its ability to recognise the value that already exists.

We talk a great deal about the city of the future: new districts, infrastructure, public spaces and technologies. But sometimes, before we set about creating the future, we need to take a careful look at the present.

Before transforming an area, we need to understand how water moves through it, which natural and historic spaces require protection, and how a new neighbourhood, road or building will affect them. Development must take account of a system that has evolved over a much longer timescale than any investment cycle. That is why one of the fundamental principles of the urban ecological approach is very simple: do no harm.

An urban ecological framework is, first and foremost, an approach to conservation. It does not propose putting the city’s development on hold. On the contrary, it helps the city grow in a way that respects natural processes, historic patterns and the value that is already there.

A city is not only what we have built. It is also what we have inherited and are responsible for passing on.

Sometimes the most important professional task is not to build more, but to preserve what keeps a city alive.

This article was produced in partnership with Aquatherm

aquatherm-almaty.kz