News

A panel discussion at the St. Petersburg Urban Forum titled “Master Plans – Why They Work and Why They Don’t?” explored the purpose, functionality, and practical limitations of master plans. Vladislav Nikolaev, Head of the Analytical Group at the Strategic Development Agency “CENTER,” discussed real cases with urbanists, analysts, and representatives of relevant agencies.

The term “master plan” became widespread after 2010, when the first such document was prepared for Perm. It was considered an innovative approach to urban development. Today, many such plans exist, but there is still no unified understanding of their role or how they relate to other documents. At the federal level, there is no official definition, causing confusion: master plans can duplicate urban planning documents or socio-economic development strategies.

The discussion highlighted Minusinsk in Krasnoyarsk Krai. There, a master plan supported by the Mel’nichenko Foundation addressed residents’ desire for recreational spaces and new tourist attractions. The “CENTER” Agency proposed creating a creative cluster on an abandoned factory site and launching the “Shishkin Log” project with a ski resort.

Master plans emphasized so-called “quick wins” — small steps demonstrating immediate results. In Minusinsk, these included city festivals and initial phases of investment projects. However, another document — a comprehensive development plan for the central settlement — was also adopted, creating overlapping objectives. This underscores the need for federal-level regulation.

Another key point: a master plan is not a cure-all. It cannot solve infrastructure wear, road shortages, or tariff issues. Separate programs and federal resources are needed.

“We expect the master plan will eventually integrate socio-economic strategies and the general plan. It is important that implementing 200 master plans does not lead to inefficient use of budget resources,” concluded Vladislav Nikolaev.