The purpose of writing this article is to improve and redefine urban planning policy within the framework of the “Year of Urban Planning and Architecture” declared for 2026, in the context of contemporary urbanization processes. According to the United Nations 2018 assessment, more than 55% of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and this figure is expected to reach 68% by 2050. This dynamic requires more integrated decisions in the fields of land use, mobility, quality of life, and climate resilience (United Nations, 2018).

The relevance of the topic is further strengthened by Target 11.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): the United Nations defines access to safe, inclusive, accessible, green, and high-quality public spaces for all as an integral part of sustainable development (United Nations Statistics Division, 2025). The New Urban Agenda further develops this approach by presenting public spaces as multifunctional networks supporting social interaction, health, economic exchange, and climate resilience (United Nations, 2017).

The purpose of the article is to comparatively analyze traditional and modern urban planning principles and to demonstrate why the reorganization of public spaces should be considered a sustainable development strategy. The methodological basis is a comparative literature review in which historical planning documents, international normative frameworks, and peer-reviewed scientific articles were examined together.

Comparative Analysis of Traditional and Modern Urban Planning Principles

One of the most influential texts of the classical functionalist urban planning model is the Athens Charter of CIAM (International Congresses of Modern Architecture). This document conceptualizes the city through four main functions — housing, work, recreation, and transportation — and places the rational organization of these functions at the center of planning. The Charter recommends zoning, movement networks classified according to speed, high-rise residential blocks positioned separately from one another, and planning programs developed by specialists. Although this model has significant historical importance, it appears to prioritize function, control, sanitation, and transportation efficiency over the vibrant social use of urban space.

Jane Jacobs regarded the main weakness of this approach as its reduction of the complexity of urban life. She argued that mixed use, short blocks, active streets, and everyday interactions are the key conditions of urban vitality. Modern sustainable urban planning documents also reflect the new paradigm that emerged following this criticism. The New Urban Agenda emphasizes urban renewal, infill development (development of vacant spaces within the city), participatory approaches, human scale, safe and high-quality street and public space networks, as well as the promotion of pedestrian and bicycle mobility (United Nations, 2017).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines the compact city model through higher density, mixed use, and public transportation-oriented development. Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights that compact urban form, reduced automobile dependency, and cross-sectoral integration play a significant role in reducing land and material consumption (IPCC, 2022a; IPCC, 2022b).

Table 1.

Comparison of Traditional and Modern Urban Planning Principles

Note: The comparison was prepared based on the synthesis of sources from CIAM, United Nations (2017), OECD (2012), and IPCC (2022a, 2022b).

Figure 1. Transition from the Traditional Model to a Public Space-Oriented Sustainable Model

Strategic Justification for the Reorganization of Public Spaces: The comparative analysis conducted as part of the research demonstrates that public space in modern urban planning is not an additional or auxiliary element. The New Urban Agenda presents public spaces as multifunctional systems including streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, squares, waterfront areas, gardens, and parks; these systems are expected to support social interaction, health, economic activity, and cultural expression (United Nations, 2017).

Scientific literature also confirms this approach. The systematic review by Qi, Mazumdar, and Vasconcelos shows that public spaces can strengthen social cohesion; however, accessibility, mixed use, perception of safety, and spatial quality are essential factors in this process (Qi, Mazumdar, & Vasconcelos, 2024). Another systematic review on the relationship between the quality of green spaces and health indicates that the type, connectivity, and quality of green areas are positively associated with physical and mental health indicators.

Therefore, the reorganization of public spaces should be understood not merely as beautification, but as the restructuring of the urban fabric itself. The key conclusion for the modern era is that urban public spaces should be planned not as isolated parks or squares, but as integrated networks connected with pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation systems, green infrastructure, services, and community governance. Only in this way can public spaces simultaneously support social integration, everyday mobility, and resilience against risks such as heatwaves and floods (United Nations, 2017; IPCC, 2022).

Research findings once again demonstrate that the following directions are fundamental for modern urban planning policy:

• Creation of interconnected public space networks consisting of streets, squares, parks, and pedestrian routes within the city;
• Renewal of existing neighborhoods, infill development, and promotion of mixed use rather than peripheral urban expansion;
• Mobility policies prioritizing public transportation, pedestrian movement, and bicycle use;
• Strengthening governance, maintenance, and public participation mechanisms alongside design processes.

In conclusion, while traditional urban planning principles emphasized order, hygiene, and functional separation in cities, the modern sustainable approach interprets the city more through the prism of connections, mixed use, public life, and climate resilience. In this transition, public space becomes the main spatial-political instrument.

Thus, the reorganization of public spaces as a sustainable development strategy is justified not only theoretically, but also politically and from a design perspective. It creates a practical platform for transitioning from the old fragmented-functional logic of urban planning toward a human-scaled, inclusive, and climate-sensitive urban model.

Mingachevir State University

Associate Professor of the Department of Mechanics,
Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture,

Ofeliya Mammadova