54 Abstracts Accepted to IMCL 2026 in Latvia as Side Tour Options Are Offered

Accepted speakers are leading researchers, city officials, practitioners, developers and NGO heads from every continent except Antarctica; Early-bird registration ends March 31

ABOVE: Tour options include a Sunday evening canal cruise through historic Riga, and Saturday day trips to castles, national parks and the wooden architecture of historic seaside towns.

RIGA, LATVIA - the 63rd International Making Cities Livable conference will start here in a little over three months—July 6 through 10—bringing together distinguished international leaders in city research, policy and practice.

A Convergence of Emerging Ideas

Speakers will include Latvian and Baltic leaders, as well as an international cohort of speakers from across Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Their work spans the critical dimensions of urban life: walkability, public space, mobility systems, economic vitality, and the physical and mental health of citizens. At its core, the event is focused not just on ideas, but on implementation—what actually works, and how it can be applied in real-world contexts.

Key themes include:

• Climate adaptation and resilient housing

• Regenerative zoning and mobility systems

• Advances in urban technology

• Walkability and street transformation

• The role of public markets in local economies

• Ecological design and green building strategies

• Neuroscience and its implications for urban environments, schools, and healthcare facilities

• Local identity, architecture, and cultural continuity

• Post-Soviet urban regeneration and lessons from transitional economies

• Pattern-based approaches to urban systems, including “nested resilient patterns”

• Practical pathways for implementation and governance

This breadth of topics reflects a growing recognition: the challenges cities face are interconnected, and so too must be the solutions.

From Mitigation to Regeneration

This year’s theme—Recovery and Resilience After an Age of Disruption—invites a deeper line of inquiry. How have cities historically recovered from war, economic collapse, environmental damage, and systemic shocks? And more importantly, how can they avoid repeating the vulnerabilities that led to those crises?

The discussion moves beyond mitigation—simply reducing harm—toward regeneration. This implies a more ambitious goal: urban systems that actively restore ecological health, rebuild social capital, and expand economic opportunity. It also raises pressing questions about current conditions. In an era of accelerating climate impacts and technological transformation, what does true resilience look like? And how can it be designed into the fabric of everyday urban life?

The Baltic Context: A Living Laboratory

The conference setting in Latvia adds a powerful layer of meaning. The cities of Riga and Jelgava sit at a historic crossroads, shaped by cycles of occupation, independence, and renewal. Their experience offers tangible lessons in recovery and adaptation—from post-war reconstruction to post-Soviet transition, and now to integration within a changing European landscape.

Riga, with its renowned Art Nouveau district and UNESCO-listed Old Town, presents a rich case study in heritage preservation and adaptive reuse, alongside contemporary waterfront development and polycentric growth. Riga also boasts the largest indoor market in Europe, the beautiful Central Market located in repurposed zeppelin hangars (photo below). Jelgava, anchored by its historic palace complex and evolving civic center, provides insight into the challenges and opportunities facing smaller cities in periods of economic and demographic change.

Participants will engage directly with these contexts through site visits, workshops, and walking discussions, bridging theory and practice in a way that is both universally informed and locally implementable.

In addition, the conference organizers have identified optional tours, including an evening canal boat tour through historic Riga on Sunday, July 5, just before the conference starts on Monday, and several day trip options on Saturday, July 11, after the conference ends on Friday. They include:

• Sigulda and Cēsis — A journey through Latvia’s medieval heartland, featuring historic castles, scenic river valleys, and richly preserved cultural landscapes about an hour from Riga.

• Rundāle Palace and Bauska Castle — A contrast of architectural grandeur and drama, combining the ornate Baroque elegance of Rundāle Palace (“Latvia’s Versailles”) with the striking medieval ruins and Renaissance-era palace at Bauska.

• Jūrmala and Great Ķemeri — A coastal and ecological experience, blending Jūrmala’s long white-sand beaches and historic wooden architecture with the unique wetland landscapes of the Great Ķemeri bog boardwalks.

The tours are operated by independent Latvian companies, but they have been selected by the conference organizers as a representative sampling of the country's architectural and natural wonders. Many other side trips are also easily arranged, including visits to the beautiful historic cities of Tallinn and Vilnius, and other sites in Scandinavia and northern Europe.

Interested parties are encouraged to register at the Early-bird rate before its end on March 31.

An Inspiring Locale, a Call to Action—With Practical Tools

As with all IMCL conferences, this gathering will provide a unique platform for peer-to-peer knowledge exchange and collaboration across international borders, disciplines and sectors—bringing together international leaders in research, practice, policy, and civil society. At a time when many urban conversations remain abstract or aspirational, this gathering will focus squarely on action: on the tools, strategies, and frameworks that can help shape a more resilient and livable urban future.

--

Begun in 1985, the International Making Cities Livable (IMCL) conference series, hosted by the Lennard Institute for Livable Cities, has become a venerable international gathering and resource platform for more livable, humane and ecological cities and towns. Our flagship conferences are held in beautiful and instructive cities hosted by visionary leaders able to share key lessons. We are a 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation based in the USA, with alternating events and activities in Europe and other parts of the world. For more information on the conference, or to register, please visit https://www.imcl.online/latvia.

ABOVE: Sights from beautiful Riga and Jelgava, Latvia, including our main venue, Jelgava Palace (top row, second from left) and Riga's historic architecture (bottom row), including its Central Market, the largest in Europe (bottom row, second from left).

Are New Towns the Answer for Housing Affordability and City Livability?

Planned or unplanned, a new generation of urbanization around the globe is under way. What are the lessons from history?

ABOVE: An aerial view of the proposed California Forever development, also known as the Suisun Expansion of the existing Suisun City. Image by California Forever.

SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USA - The idea of building “new towns” to solve housing shortages and improve urban livability is not new. From the Garden Cities of Ebenezer Howard to modernist experiments like Brasília and Chandigarh, planners have repeatedly turned to large-scale, purpose-built settlements as solutions to urban problems.

The results, however, have been mixed at best. Many new towns have failed to deliver on their promises, producing car-dependent environments, economic monocultures, or socially fragmented places that lack the complexity of real urban life. In some cases, they have reproduced the very problems they were meant to solve. Skepticism is therefore well warranted.

On the other hand, many (if not most) of the most successful and well-loved cities and parts of cities started as new planned settlements. There are ample lessons from history about the processes that made those new settlements successful - and processes that made them regrettable. We now have a deeper understanding of the importance of what Jane Jacobs called "organized complexity," and the need for diversity, walkability, and mixed-use development. At the same time, we now face enormous new pressures: rising land and housing costs, a mismatch of housing types to needs, climate threats, health impacts, and rapid global urbanization.

The question is no longer whether new towns, or new urban extensions of towns, are inherently good or bad. Whether we favor it or not, urbanization is happening around the globe -- sometimes at breathtaking speeds, especially in the Global South. The question now is whether these new settlements can be conceived, governed, and implemented in ways that overcome the structural distortions that have undermined past efforts.

Three contemporary scenarios, in different parts of the world with very different contexts, help illuminate this challenge:

• A major new town proposal in California;

• Ongoing UK efforts around Garden Cities and urban extensions;

• The rapid growth of cities, particularly their informal settlements, across the Global South.

Together, these three examples of urbanization offer a revealing case study of the opportunities and dangers of today's urban expansions.

1. California Forever: A New Urbanist Test Case?

One of the most prominent current proposals is California Forever, a privately financed plan to build a new city of up to 400,000 residents in Solano County, USA. Positioned as a response to California’s housing crisis, it proposes something largely absent from recent

U.S. development -- unlike, say, China or other parts of the world: an entire walkable, mixed-use city built at metropolitan scale.

ABOVE: Rendering of a street scene from the Suisun Extension project. Image by California Forever.

Notably, the proposal has drawn support from figures within the New Urbanist movement. Steve Mouzon, a speaker at the upcoming IMCL conference this July, has argued that the project aligns with principles of “The Original Green,” emphasizing enduring, place-based sustainability rooted in traditional urban form. Unlike many large-scale proposals, he suggests, California Forever holds up not only in concept but at the level of streets, blocks, and daily life.

In particular, Mouzon highlights several features that will be familiar to IMCL audiences:

• A fine-grained street network, including a hierarchical grid reminiscent of 19th-century urbanism;

• A prioritization of walkability and human-scale design;

• A stated emphasis on “quality of life” over sheer economic throughput or consumption;

• A consistency between stated goals and the physical planning framework—something he notes is rare in contemporary large-scale developments.

One of the persistent criticisms of New Urbanism (and other projects aimed at walkable mixed use) is that such projects are limited and boutique in character -- and that reality, coupled with their very popularity, makes them unaffordable "luxury goods". California Forever could therefore represent an important test: whether principles of walkable, human-scaled urbanism can be applied at larger scales -- including the scales that many believe will be required to address contemporary housing challenges of affordability and livability.

However, there are reasons for caution. The scale and governance model raise questions about accountability and long-term public oversight. Environmental constraints—including water supply and ecological impacts—are significant in a region already under stress. And as with many new towns, the greatest risk lies in the gap between plan and implementation: financing, phasing, and market pressures can easily erode even the strongest initial framework.

A further concern lies in the design character of some of the buildings in the renderings. Many lean toward a contemporary minimalist aesthetic, raising issues not of stylistic preference but of geometric and morphological quality. a topic we have examined in IMCL conferences, particularly in light of new research in environmental psychology, neuroscience, and neuroaesthetics. It suggests that the most successful environments—those supporting walkability, economic vitality, and human well-being—exhibit rich levels of ordered complexity, scaling hierarchy, and ornamentation. By contrast, simplified and visually shallow environments have often proven less resilient over time. Indeed, many once-fashionable modernist environments have aged poorly and, in some cases, been demolished. From a sustainability perspective, environments that fail to sustain long-term human attachment are unlikely to endure.

Yet the stated motivations for the project are compelling. California has a severe shortage of walkable, moderately dense, affordable urban environments, and the demand for these places drives up their cost. In that context, a large-scale supply intervention, including more housing for lower- and middle-income residents, becomes persuasive to many.

As Mouzon and others argue, California Forever may represent one of the most serious and promising attempts in decades to apply sound urban principles at scale. There is also the danger that it will repeat familiar mistakes of overreach and under-delivery. In that sense, it is a stunningly ambitious test of whether we have learned enough from past failures to do better.

ABOVE: THe Suisun Expansion shows a fine-grained plot and block structure, supporting mixed use and walkability, and accommodating "middle housing" at a range of prices. Image by California Forever.

2. UK Garden Cities and Urban Extensions: Housing vs. Places

In the United Kingdom, the response has taken a different form. Rather than focusing on new settlements, current efforts emphasize urban extensions and updated Garden City models, expanding existing towns in more integrated ways. This approach reflects an important shift: building on and extending existing infrastructure and communities rather than starting from scratch.

Poundbury, UK, an example of urban extension advocated by The King's Foundation.

A key advocate for this approach has been the The King’s Foundation, a long-time partner of the IMCL. Ben Bolgar, its Director of Projects, will also be contributing to upcoming IMCL discussions at the Latvia conference this July. Their work emphasizes not just housing delivery, but the creation of complete, walkable communities, typified by Poundbury (left) and other "urban extensions".

The Foundation makes a critical distinction between delivering “housing” and delivering “places.” Despite widespread agreement on the value of mixed-use, walkable environments, most development continues to produce large-scale, single-use housing estates—car-dependent, lacking services, and limited in long-term sustainability.

The reason for this persistence has less to do with a lack of design knowledge, and more to do with economic incentive structures: economies of scale, impatient capital, and regulatory comlpexities, among other barriers.

Volume housebuilders operate within systems that rewards scale and standardization. Financing, valuation, and risk frameworks favor predictable cookie-cutter residential products over more complex, diverse, mixed-use environments. As a result, even well-intentioned plans are often simplified in delivery. This amounts to a persistent structural misalignment between what we know produces livable places and what the system delivers.

Efforts by the King’s Foundation aim to address this through design guidance, demonstration projects, and advocacy for systemic reform. But the UK experience underscores a key lesson: the challenge is not simply to design better places, but to create the conditions under which they can and will be built.

Urban extensions do offer a more context-sensitive alternative to new towns, as the failed examples of new towns in the UK demonstrate. But their competitive disadvantages also highlight a broader need: for systemic reforms of the economic and institutional drivers, to make these places just as attractive on price as well as quality.

3. Informal Settlements: The Realities of Global Urbanization

In much of the Global South, “new towns” are not master-planned projects, but informal settlements, often disparagingly referred to as slums. Indeed, they can be woefully short of adequate infrastructure, services, and public spaces, they can be unsanitary and unsafe. Yet even today, they are often the dominant mode of urbanization in many regions. More to the point, they exhibit dynamics of urbanization that are as old as cities themselves.

The issue goes the the fundamental question of why we make cities at all, and why we want to live in them. The reality is that urbanization is one of the most powerful drivers of human development, associated with improved incomes, health, education, and expanded opportunities—particularly for women and disadvantaged populations. It's not surprising then, that for all their problems, these informal settlements are attractive to many rural residents looking for a better life in the city.

ABOVE, a favela, or informal settlement, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The question, then, is not whether informal urbanization should occur, but how it can be supported and improved. As Solly Angel of New York University has noted -- and has applied to his work with The King's Foundation and others -- we will need to better understand, and respect, the processes of self-organization that occur in informal settlements, and steer them toward better human outcomes. Often this means finding simple, understandable ways of creating better urban patterns (like street patterns) proactively, rather than trying to retrofit them reactively. It's less about trying to force a top-down approach -- or for that matter, taking a laissez-faire bottom-up approach -- and more about finding an optimum combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches.

In this context, the IMCL network, in partnership with UN-Habitat and Sustasis Foundation, is developing work on “local patterns for implementing the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals.” The goal is to translate global frameworks into practical local tools that guide local decisions, about the layout and maintenance of streets, public spaces, private plots, and infrastructure—in ways that are adaptable, understandable, and capable of supporting incremental improvement.

In informal settlements, this approach is especially promising. Rather than wholesale clearance, it supports upgrading, gradual densification, and the introduction of services, while preserving existing natural assets and social structures.

Asking The Real Question

The question, then, is not whether new urbanization is happening - it unquestionably is, and will almost certainly continue -- but how it can be made safe, healthy, equitable, ecological -- in a word, livable.

California Forever shows us the potential, and the risks too, of large-scale, principle-driven development. The UK experience reveals the systemic barriers that prevent the delivery of complete communities. And informal settlements demonstrate that urbanization is an ongoing, self-organizing process that must be engaged, not replaced.

This does not mean that we should neglect infill, redevelopment, and the repair of existing urban fabric. There is enormous value in leveraging existing infrastructure, strengthening existing communities, and achieving environmental benefits by reducing urban footprints. Yet these areas of development remain difficult because they often contain some of the most entrenched barriers.

New towns and urban extensions can in some respects offer pathways around those barriers -- not only providing needed homes and services, but serving as test beds for innovative new approaches, possibly useful for both new and old settlements. But they require their own forms of systemic change, without which they only risk reproducing familiar problems in new locations.

The real opportunity lies in simplified, user-friendly frameworks that can operate across contexts: shaping new developments, guiding urban extensions, and supporting the evolution of informal settlements, as well as infill development. (We are very encouraged about the potential of pattern languages to serve as these framework tools - to be discussed further at the upcoming IMCL conference.)

The question, then, is not whether new towns and urban extensions into greenfields are the answer. For better or worse, they are happening around the globe. The real question is whether we are prepared to realign our systems of urban growth and revitalization with what we already know, and have learned from history. That is the enormous remaining challenge ahead.

---

The 63rd International Making Cities Livable, July 6-10 in Riga and Jelgava, Latvia, will examine these and other questions.

Learning from France About Building Affordable, LIVABLE Cities and Towns

From a country of grim dormitory suburbs, the country is building a new generation of polycentric regions connected by trams -- and over 300,000 homes per year, many of them affordable.

ABOVE: Le Plessis-Robinson, a town within Paris' polycentric region, former dormitory suburb transformed into a mixed, walkable "15-minute city" -- with 35% affordable housing.

PARIS, FRANCE - A new report from our colleagues at Create Streets in London finds that France has quietly achieved something many countries are struggling to do: build large numbers of new homes -- while also creating affordable places people actually want to live in.

In recent years, France has been producing roughly 300,000 new homes per year, a level that many governments have set as a target but rarely achieve. What makes this achievement notable is not simply the scale of construction, but the character of the places being built. Rather than endless car-dependent suburbs or isolated housing subdivisions, many of these new homes are located in compact, walkable districts connected by modern tram systems and designed as complete neighborhoods.

The result is a pattern of development that offers an important lesson for cities around the world: it is possible to build large numbers of new homes — including affordable homes — while also improving the livability of urban environments.

ABOVE: The remarkably livable yet compact Le Plessis-Robinson, a suburb of Paris, featuring many affordable homes.

Housing production without sacrificing livability

Across much of the world, the debate about housing tends to become polarized. On one side are calls to build more homes to address affordability and shortages. On the other are concerns that rapid development will undermine the quality and character of communities.

France’s recent experience suggests that this trade-off is not inevitable.

The report, Towns and Trams: Learning from the French, examines several places where housing development has been integrated with transit investment and urban design. The projects studied — including new districts in Clamart near Paris, the reconstructed town of Le Plessis-Robinson, and tram-oriented growth in the city of Angers — illustrate how new housing can be delivered at scale while also producing attractive, walkable environments.

In each case the development model combines several key elements:

• medium-density housing rather than high-rise towers

• walkable streets and local services

• strong public spaces

• high-quality public transport

• integration of affordable and market housing

The resulting neighborhoods are not simply housing projects. They are functioning urban districts.

ABOVE: Le Plessis-Robinson was transformed from a grim "dormitory banlieue" (left) to a mixed, walkable, diverse town (right) - with integrated natural areas and livable public spaces.

Beyond the dormitory suburb

For much of the twentieth century, suburban growth across Europe and North America followed a familiar pattern: large housing estates built on the edges of cities, often disconnected from jobs and services and heavily dependent on the automobile.

France experienced this pattern as well. Many post-war suburbs consisted of large housing blocks surrounded by highways and parking lots — places widely criticized for their lack of social and urban vitality.

But over the past few decades, many French cities have taken a different approach.

Instead of expanding outward with low-density subdivisions, they have focused on building compact, mixed-use districts that function as local urban centers. Residents can walk to daily services such as grocery stores, schools, childcare facilities, and cafes. Streets are designed as social spaces rather than traffic corridors. Cars remain present, but they are less dominant.

These districts are often described today as “15-minute neighborhoods,” meaning that most daily needs can be reached within a short walk or bicycle ride.

The new Panorama district in Clamart, for example, was designed so that residents can reach shops, schools, and public spaces within minutes. Local leaders have described the concept as something closer to a “two-minute city.”

ABOVE: The Paris suburb of Clamart, well-connected to Paris and other towns with a tram, and moreover a complete community in its own right.

Trams as the backbone of growth

A central element in this model is the revival of the tram. France dismantled most of its historic tram networks after the Second World War, as many countries did. But beginning in the 1980s, cities began rebuilding them — not simply as transportation projects, but as tools for shaping urban development.

Today, more than two dozen French cities operate modern tram systems, and new lines continue to be built. These systems provide high-capacity, frequent transit connecting suburban districts to city centers and to other parts of the metropolitan region. Importantly, many new housing developments have been planned around these lines.

The relationship works both ways. Transit makes higher-density development possible, while compact development generates the ridership needed to support frequent service.

In the city of Angers, for example, new housing development has been concentrated along tram corridors, where planning policies encourage higher density and reduced parking requirements. The tram system becomes not just a transportation line but a framework organizing the growth of the city.

Affordable housing integrated into the city

Another striking feature of the French approach is the integration of affordable housing.

In many of the projects studied, social housing is not segregated into separate districts but incorporated into mixed developments alongside market housing. From the street, it is often impossible to distinguish between the two. This integration helps reduce the stigma historically associated with public housing and supports socially mixed neighborhoods.

Equally important, the urban form itself helps support affordability. Medium-density housing — typically apartment buildings of four to six stories — allows more homes to be built on available land without resorting to high-rise construction. When combined with transit access and walkable services, these neighborhoods become highly desirable places to live. Importantly, they are also less expensive places to live, because they do not require costly automobile-based travel for most trips.

ABOVE: "Social housing" -- subsidized affordable housing -- is mixed in with market-rate housing in Le PLessis-Robinson and other new French developments, eliminating the stigma of "projects."

Streets designed for people

One of the most noticeable features of the developments examined in the report is the character of the streets. In many cases, parking has been moved underground or consolidated into shared facilities, freeing surface space for trees, sidewalks, and public activity. Streets are narrower and calmer. Cars are present, but they do not dominate the environment.

This shift has multiple effects. It improves the public realm, encourages walking and cycling, and allows land to be used more efficiently for housing and public space. The result is a form of urban density that remains comfortable and human-scaled.

ABOVE: Cars are accommodated in Le Plessis-Robinson -- but they do not dominate, and there are many other enjoyable ways to get around.

A polycentric urban pattern

Although each neighborhood functions locally, the broader metropolitan structure is also important. These districts are not isolated communities. Instead they form nodes within larger metropolitan networks, connected by transit to other centers of employment, culture, and education. This creates what is known as a polycentric region — a system of multiple urban centers, rather than a single dominant core surrounded by dependent suburbs.

Residents may work or travel elsewhere in the region, but daily life can take place close to home.

This balance between local completeness and regional connectivity is one of the most important features of the French model.

Lessons for cities worldwide

The French experience does not provide an exact blueprint that can be copied everywhere. Each country has its own institutional systems, political structures, and planning traditions.

But several lessons appear broadly applicable.

First, housing supply and urban quality do not have to be in conflict. With thoughtful design and planning, it is possible to build large numbers of homes while also improving the livability of cities.

Second, transit and urban development work best when they are planned together, within polycentric regions. When new neighborhoods are structured around high-quality public transport, residents gain alternatives to car dependence. When the communities are planned as a network of complete communities, residents still have access to regional resources -- but they don't need to access them as frequently.

Third, medium-density housing in a mixed-use setting can provide a powerful balance between livability and efficiency. The so-called “missing middle” — apartment buildings, courtyard housing, and townhouses — allows cities to grow, and to accommodate diverse housing needs at a range of prices, without resorting to either sprawl or towers.

Finally, the experience shows the value of building complete neighborhoods rather than isolated housing estates. When housing, services, and public space are integrated from the start, new development becomes part of the urban fabric rather than an afterthought.

ABOVE: The market hall in Le Plessis-Robinson, offering fresh food and other goods, and one of the many mixed-use amenities within a short walk of all its residents.

Building cities for the future

Around the world, cities face growing pressure to provide more housing while also addressing economic opportunity, mobility needs, climate change threats, and quality of life.

France’s recent experience demonstrates that these challenges can be addressed together.

By combining compact urban form, strong public spaces, and high-quality transit, French cities are building new neighborhoods that are not only more affordable, but also more livable. Perhaps the most encouraging lesson is that this transformation is occurring not in isolated showcase projects, but at a significant scale — helping deliver hundreds of thousands of new homes each year.

For cities seeking ways to expand housing supply without sacrificing urban quality, that is a lesson worth studying closely.

You can download the Create Streets report here. A video report on the Create Streets team's tour is also here.

---

We will examine the lessons of France -- and other countries around the world working to meet today's urban challenges with effective tools and strategies -- at the 63rd International Making Cities Livable (IMCL) conference in Riga and Jelgava, Latvia, July 6-10, 2026. For more information about the conference, please visit https://www.imcl.online/latvia.