The 63rd International Making Cities Livable (IMCL) will study new innovations as well as timeless lessons, in beautiful Riga and Jelgava, Latvia, July 6-10, 2026
ABOVE: Riga and Jelgava, Latvia, the locales of the 63rd International Making Cities Livable.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This post is an introduction to some of the themes of the next IMCL conference in the long-running and venerable series begun in 1985.
Cities today are facing a wave of potentially unprecedented disruptions. Climate change, geopolitical instability, housing crises, social polarization, technological upheaval, and economic volatility are commonly cited as novel and overwhelming forces—conditions that require entirely new frameworks of response. Yet from a longer historical perspective, disruption is not an anomaly in urban life: it is a recurring condition.
European cities, in particular, offer an instructive reminder of this reality. Over the past century alone, many have endured war, occupation, ideological reconstruction, forced (and often unwelcome) modernization, economic disruption, and rapid political transition. Entire districts have been erased and rebuilt multiple times, often under externally imposed systems that bore little relationship to local culture or civic life. And yet, many of these cities have not only survived, but recovered in ways that restored identity, vitality, and long-term functionality.
The central question, then, is not whether cities can withstand disruption—but how they recover, and what kinds of recovery lead to enduring urban health rather than fragile equilibrium. This is an especially relevant question today for city leaders, academics and practitioners from around the world.
Beyond “Bouncing Back”
The concept of resilience has been the dominant framework for responding to disruption over the past two decades. Resilience has clear value: it emphasizes robustness, adaptability, and the capacity to absorb shocks. But resilience also carries an implicit assumption that the goal is to return to a prior state—often a state that was already socially inequitable, economically brittle, or environmentally unsustainable.
European urban history suggests a different lesson. Successful recovery is rarely a simple act of restoration. Instead, it is a process of regeneration: the rebuilding of underlying capacities that allow a city to evolve, adapt, and flourish over time.
This distinction matters. A resilient city can survive repeated shocks; a regenerative city becomes stronger because of them. The Lebanese-American scholar Nassim Nicholas Taleb has called this condition "antifragile" - a structure that actually gains from disorder. We might ask, then, what an "antifragile urbanism" would look like -- and we could find many clues on the continent of Europe, and in the Baltic states in particular.
Europe as a Living Laboratory of Recovery
Consider the post-war reconstruction of European cities after 1945. In many cases, the initial response prioritized speed, efficiency, and ideological clarity over local complexity. Large-scale modernist reconstruction—often driven by centralized planning doctrines—produced housing and infrastructure quickly, but frequently at the cost of urban coherence, social life, and long-term adaptability.
In subsequent decades, many cities were forced to confront the unintended consequences of those choices: isolated housing estates, disconnected street networks, weakened local economies, and a loss of civic identity. Recovery, in these cases, did not come from another round of wholesale replacement. It came from incremental repair—re-stitching street networks, reintroducing mixed uses, restoring public space, and supporting small-scale, locally embedded development.
The tools of incremental repair are not mysterious -- but they require careful study, assessment and deployment. They are available to all cities and towns across the globe, as we face a new wave of disruptive change.
The lessons can be found across Europe, from historic cores damaged by war to peripheral districts shaped by ideologically driven planning. The lesson is consistent: cities recover not by imposing new universal solutions, but by rebuilding the relationships that make urban systems work.
Cities as Complex Networks
One way to understand this process is to recognize cities as complex adaptive networks, rather than static physical artifacts. Streets, blocks, buildings, public spaces, institutions, and social practices form interconnected systems that shape how people move, interact, and invest meaning over time.
This networked view has a useful analogy in neuroscience. Just as the human brain functions through a dense web of connections—where cognition emerges from relationships rather than isolated components—cities function through what might be called an urban connectome: a network of places, pathways, thresholds, and interactions that collectively produce urban life.
Damage to a city often disrupts these networks. Streets are severed, public spaces lose their role as social condensers, and institutions become disconnected from everyday life. Recovery, therefore, is not merely a matter of replacing buildings or infrastructure, but of restoring connectivity—spatial, social, and economic.
European recovery efforts that have succeeded over time tend to share this characteristic. They focus less on singular “iconic” projects and more on repairing the fine-grained connective tissue of urban life: walkable streets, active edges, mixed-use neighborhoods, and accessible public spaces.
ABOVE: Riga, Latvia, including its spectacular Central Market, located within five former zeppelin hangars.
Latvia: Recovery Under Pressure
These themes will be central to the 63rd International Making Cities Livable Conference, to be held July 6–10, 2026 in Riga and Jelgava, Latvia. The country offers a particularly instructive context for examining these dynamics. Latvian cities experienced devastation during the Second World War, followed by decades of reconstruction shaped largely by Soviet planning doctrines. The result was a built environment that often prioritized industrial efficiency and ideological symbolism over local urban traditions.
Since regaining independence, Latvian cities have faced the dual challenge of repairing physical damage and reclaiming civic identity—all while navigating new economic realities and contemporary geopolitical pressures. This has required not only technical expertise, but careful negotiation between heritage and adaptation, memory and innovation.
What makes Latvia especially relevant today is that its challenges are not unique. Many cities across Europe and beyond are grappling with inherited urban forms that no longer serve contemporary needs, while facing external pressures that limit available choices. Latvia’s ongoing recovery thus provides insight into how cities can regenerate under constraint—by strengthening local networks rather than relying on imported solutions.
From History to Implementation
One of the most important lessons from Europe’s experience is that implementation matters more than aspiration. Grand visions, whether modernist or technocratic, have repeatedly faltered when they failed to engage the complexity of urban systems.
Regenerative recovery, by contrast, tends to proceed through:
Small, coordinated interventions rather than megaprojects
Reinforcement of existing social and spatial networks
Adaptation of inherited structures rather than wholesale replacement
Governance processes that allow learning and adjustment over time
Pattern Languages as a Tool for Regeneration
What are the specific tools for implementation? We will examine many of them in detail. One example is the pattern language methodology -- used in software and many other fields today, and proven to be particularly useful. Pattern languages are not stylistic prescriptions, but are better understood as relational tools—frameworks that describe recurring solutions to recurring problems within complex systems. They are exceptionally well-suited to dealing with cities as complex adaptive networks.
In the context of urban recovery, pattern languages offer several advantages:
They operate at multiple scales, from regional structure to street design to building detail.
They encode historical learning without freezing it into rigid templates.
They support incremental, context-sensitive implementation rather than one-off interventions.
They provide a shared vocabulary that can align planners, designers, officials, and citizens.
European cities have repeatedly demonstrated that regeneration works best when it follows recognizable patterns of human settlement—patterns that support social interaction, economic diversity, and civic identity. These patterns already exist, whether named in the formal methodology or not. The methodology only allows them to be identified as a means to guide successful recovery: small blocks, permeable street networks, mixed uses, robust public spaces, and buildings that shape streets rather than retreat from them.
ABOVE: Patterns created for new challenges, including resilience planning and climate adaptation.
Pattern languages help make this tacit knowledge explicit and transferable, without reducing it to external or top-town formulas that ignore local conditions.
Pattern languages and network-based thinking provide practical ways to support this kind of implementation. They help cities ask better questions: Where are connections broken? Which patterns are missing or weakened? How can incremental change produce real cumulative transformation, and meet our critical needs?
ABOVE: New pattern languages include digital forms such as this wiki created by wiki inventor Ward Cunningham.
A Springboard for Effective Change
This and other topics will be central to the 63rd International Making Cities Livable Conference, to be held July 6–10, 2026 in Riga and Jelgava, Latvia. Through comparative case studies, site-based workshops, and cross-disciplinary dialogue, the conference will explore how cities can move beyond resilience toward regenerative forms of recovery, grounded in history, attentive to place, and capable of enduring change. The conference will serve as a springboard for further collaboration, projects, research, and other initiatives to push forward with transformational change in making cities livable.
---
The International Making Cities Livable (IMCL) conference series is a premier interdisciplinary, cross-border gathering of city leaders, researchers and practitioners established in 1985. Our last conference in Potsdam, Germany in October 2025 included cross-sector leaders from the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. Attendee comments included “An absolutely fantastic event, with amazing speakers and extremely well organized,” “Wonderful conference!”, “Such rich content!”, “Excellent… High professional level and warm atmosphere”, “I left brimming with ideas and contacts for a great cohort of new colleagues.” For more information about the conference and how to participate, please visit the IMCL conference website at https://www.imcl.online/latvia.
