Master planning has emerged as a critical tool for shaping city futures, driving how districts are transformed and how development documents guide investment and regulation. At a recent roundtable, Evgeniy Mikhailenko, the director of the City Center and the dean of the Faculty of Urban and Regional Development at the Higher School of Economics, outlined the growing role of master plans in urban strategy and their potential to influence policy and practice as these documents begin to gain formal legal standing. The discussion highlighted how master planning can coordinate land use, infrastructure, and social needs in a cohesive framework that cities can implement over time.
According to Mikhailenko, master plans have already begun to shift the way jurisdictions approach territory transformation and the creation of development policies. If, in the near term, a master plan achieves legal recognition, its influence on urban planning practice is likely to become even more pronounced. This shift would mean that strategic visions translate into enforceable standards and clearer guidance for municipalities, developers, and communities alike, ultimately aligning long‑term goals with practical delivery timelines.
One issue repeatedly raised during the roundtable was the lack of a clearly defined relationship between master plans and the general plan. In many regions, these instruments operate separately within the planning framework, leading to inconsistencies in how land use is described, zoning takes shape, and projects are sequenced. The result can be confusion among professionals who must reconcile master plan directives with broader regional goals and statutory requirements, which underscores the need for tighter alignment across planning layers.
Participants noted that establishing a coherent connection between master plans and general plans would help reduce friction in implementation. A robust linkage would ensure that the master plan informs budget decisions, capital programs, and regulatory updates, while the general plan provides the overarching spatial strategy and long‑range objectives that anchor project choices. Without this alignment, the system risks fragmentation, duplicative effort, and ambiguous accountability for outcomes.
The roundtable also emphasized the necessity of crafting realistic master plans that reflect available public resources. Budget constraints inevitably shape what can be funded, built, and maintained, so planning must be anchored in fiscal reality from the outset. In addition, effective communication among the client, the contractor, and a broad spectrum of stakeholders was identified as a central factor in successful implementation. Clear channels for feedback, transparent decision making, and timely updates are essential to maintaining trust and ensuring that plans stay responsive to evolving conditions.
Held on December 13 within the National Research University Higher School of Economics building, this roundtable marked the first event in a planned sequence of discussions focused on strategic master planning. The gathering gathered policymakers, planners, academics, and practitioners who shared experiences from diverse cities and regions. The dialogue underscored that master planning is not merely a document; it is a process that requires ongoing collaboration, data‑driven analysis, and a willingness to adapt as urban realities shift. The participants agreed that advancing a practical, legally cognizant, and financially grounded master planning framework would support more predictable development patterns, improved service delivery, and stronger civic legitimacy for long‑term urban investments. The conversation also highlighted the role of public engagement in shaping plans that reflect community priorities and foster broad-based support for ambitious projects, even when initial funding cycles are modest or uncertain. The outcomes suggested several concrete steps for cities seeking to strengthen their planning practice, including better integration of economic, environmental, and social indicators into master plan dashboards, and the adoption of phased implementation with clear milestones and evaluation metrics. These measures would help ensure that master plans remain living documents capable of guiding growth responsibly and equitably over time.