The main difference is not the scale. The main difference is that a city is an open system which endlessly evolves. According to legend, it is said that Riga must never be completed for fear that on completion, a monster will rise up from the Daugava and destroy it. The moral of this legend must hold true for every city. 
As Town Planning is a system of algorithms, guides and procedures it can be more likened to directing a movie or telling a story than as simply providing a map. The time of town planning understood as the drawing of a map is over. Contemporary planning is about people in space, not like years ago when it was about buildings in space. 
Once again, a town is a system. A system which is made up of different autonomous yet connected elements. The elements of a town-system can be called “functions”. Such functions of a city are residential, industrial, service oriented and ecological to name but a few. These functions do, of course, have spatial representation. 
Classical modernist town planning of the 20th century used very strict separations of these functions and each function was placed in a separate zone. The problem is that a town is somehow a living organism, and as such, these functions tend to change. The situation is even more complicated because interactions between functions are extremely rich and changeable. There are few “mediums” of these interactions. The most important of which are people.
We would like to stress this point: People interact with other people and with an artificial environment. To simplify the matter as much as possible we can say that all autonomous parts of a town-system interact between themselves in these three spheres: spatial, social and economical. To put things into some kind of order we can say that a town is a system. A town-system has goals and corresponding regulations with which to achieve such goals.

A town-system has some ability to self-regulate. However, very often it is too weak and needs external intervention. The crux of the matter is the balance between the free-market, which is part of a self-regulating mechanism, and the afore-mentioned intervention.
The principle tool of regulation is the plan. The plan is only a tool, a tool that has to be used wisely in order to work effectively. The plan itself creates nothing.
To use the tool properly, a user must know what the goals of the town are and how the town-system works. Principally, the user must be familiar with the goals of the town. Generally speaking, what could be or what are the goals of a town? One clear answer to this question is of course, development. How development is defined is another matter.
It could be development in terms of quantity, understood as spatial growing or the growth of population. It could also be development in terms of quality, for example, the development of quality of life. To fulfill such a goal, a hierarchy of development procedures is needed.
Traditionally, urban planning was founded on three conflicting development dimensions: economic development, social justice, and environmental protection. In the 21st century urban development planning in Europe is based on the principles of sustainable development. Today, urban living is the cause of many local, regional and global development problems. The paradigm of sustainable development, which offers solutions to many of these problems, has become a development goal for the European Union and Latvia. Several EU documents, which are binding on Riga and Latvia, define guidelines and recommend actions regarding the creation of a sustainable and quality urban environment (EC Lisbon Process (2000), EU Strategy for Sustainable Development (2001), Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment (2004)). Riga signed the Aalborg Charter in 1994 and in 2004 committed itself to the Aalborg Commitments. They define a framework and criteria for sustainable urban development in specific sectors for urban development planning in general and for the process of urban management and governance. Riga has collected and compiled data and information for the European Common Indicators that allow the sustainability of urban development to be measured from 10 different aspects.

 
In the past, development priorities were defined largely by city administrations and politicians with emphasis being placed principally on economic development that provided positive impacts or solutions in the shortest period of time. Social and environmental issues were of secondary concern. Today, economic development in urban areas should take place according to the principles of sustainable development. Urban sustainability principles include: integrated, open and transparent development planning and governance with meaningful involvement of citizens and community stakeholders in issues related to the quality of urban life, the development of a compact city, the remediation and development of “brown-field” sites, the minimization of environmental contamination, the protection and effective utilization of natural resources, a reduction in the consumption of non-renewable energy resources and their replacement with renewable energy resources, avoidance of unnecessary consumption, avoidance of social segregation and the elimination of poverty, equity in terms of access to a healthy environment and health services and finally, a longer term view of development so as not to limit development opportunities for future generations. 

At first glance it could appear that sustainability principles make the urban development planning process more difficult, but in reality they can actually help to identify and clarify which solutions are most appropriate for attaining the goals defined in the city development plan. Furthermore, solutions that are in accordance with the principles of sustainability will help the city to avoid the same developmental mistakes that have been made by the cities of more developed industrialized countries. 
Urban planners, specialists, the business sector, community stakeholders and residents together should define the developmental priorities of the city. Only then should professional planners and specialists develop strategies with which to attain goals set. 
What is critical is that stakeholders and each and every resident should cooperate in the defining and prioritizing of goals for the development of the city. Every stakeholder group has its own particular experience and, consequently, their own biases, views and opinions regarding city development. Typically residents have meaningful knowledge regarding the developmental needs of their local community and are aware of the availability of, accessibility to and quality of municipal services as used by their families. The views of residents regarding urban development are equally as important as those of the business sector, investors and specialists, because it is vital that a city is a good place for families to live, work and socialise. It is also important that a city is a place in which people feel happy to have and raise children. It is important that when defining the development priorities of a city, urban planners identify, compile, and analyse all views expressed by stakeholders and residents. In the event that some of the views which have been expressed are not utilized in the planning process, it is important that planners provide an explanation as to why they have been deemed as inapplicable. This ensures that the process of defining development priorities is professionally argued in an open and transparent process.
Only when developmental goals have been defined in an open and transparent process involving both stakeholder and public consultation, should planners and sector specialists begin to develop strategies to attain the defined goals. The strategies should be developed on the basis of an analysis of existing conditions and developmental trends and in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. Equally important is the need for the strategies to be non-conflicting and in tune with one another and that win-win solutions are actively sought between different strategies. 
Now we come to the crux of the matter; the plan itself. From a legal point of view any activities are possible only if they are included in the plan. The plan has to then be used as the tool of implementing certain directions of development and following them, thus achieving certain goals. 

HOW TO JUDGE A PLAN?

There is only one criteria by which to judge the plan, by its efficiency in achieving goals set. This means that It is not the plan itself that is to be judged but actually we should concentrate on the goals it has been designed to achieve. 
We would like to stress that we do not have access to the materials which were used by the authors of the Plan, however despite this fact, by relying on our professional knowledge and experience we feel able to here present our own opinions. 
Is the presented plan a scenario of development? Or is it rather a scenario of stagnation? Are the goals properly defined? There are some serious doubts about this. This is a good point from which to begin any criticism of this plan yet instead we would like to do something more constructive. We ourselves will try to define objectives for the development of Riga and practical, tangible ways of achieving these objectives. 

OBJECTIVES FOR RIGA DEVELOPMENT

We are defining goals of spatial development but in the context of social and economic development. 
First of all, a strategic situation of the city has to be examined.
Riga is the biggest Latvian city and it is also the country's capital. There is no doubt that Riga has to be analyzed as a city of a metropolitan character in the first place. In particular metropolitan city cases the interrelations of functions define a city's unique character. Therefore, a capital city cannot merely fulfill the basic needs of its residents as this is the task for any other city. It has more tasks. The central functions should be of primary importance. The capital has to function on over-local and over regional level. This is, in our opinion, the most important task for the development plan for Riga: to strengthen the metropolitan function of the city. Because of the generality and complexity of this objective it could be also be defined as a “mission” of Riga. This mission could be realized by the strengthening of the role of Riga in many fields. Riga does not have a problem with an “overloaded” centre, quite the opposite, the centre is underdeveloped, badly linked with the rest of the city and it lacks the necessary conditions for further development. The solution for this problem would be to support the centre instead of neglecting it. 

TRANSPORTATION

The existing extensive network of railway lines in Riga offers the potential for the development of a modern public transportation system. 
According to sustainability principles the key to modern transportation at the local level is to minimize the need for travel. It is essential that transportation planning is undertaken in close coordination with land use planning. Land use planning should avoid mono-functional zoning of land and should ensure that compatible multifunctional land use zoning is fostered. Riga is sufficiently compact and topographically flat enough to enable the development of a city-wide network of bicycle paths. For young and free spirited people a network of bicycle paths would offer quick mobility and as a consequence of this, automobile congestion and associated air and noise pollution in the city could be reduced. 
The transportation system of the city is it lifeblood. It is one of the basic spatial components. It is also the one which endures the longest. A transportation system is inherited after the previous stages of city spatial development and any changes may have very serious consequences. This is why it is much easier to replace buildings, even whole blocks, than to change the traffic system. Since Riga was founded it has been an important junction in this part of Europe. Its geographical position makes it an important element in the European water and land communication network. It is important to develop a transportation system in relation to its primary metropolitan function. A transportation system should support the metropolitan function and never collide with it. It should not cause spatial conflicts otherwise this may lead to the degradation of vast areas within the city.
It is important to find a basic model on which the segregation of movement should be designed. Riga is not only part of the European communication network but also it is a generator of heavy traffic itself. A basic rule of segregation of transit and local traffic should be primary for the future plan. It is also important not to lead the transit traffic into the heart of the city centre as that may lead to numerous conflicts. The geographical situation of Riga and the spatial structure of its boundary territories allows for the locating of a system of by-passes around it. This would protect the fragile city structure from damaging interventions.

CENTRAL FUNCTIONS

The most important features, which define a metropolitan area, are its central functions. So called “central functions” have meta-local impact and they also gather and stimulate development of other functions. The local functions can be also defined as exclusive and unique for the capital. It is important to realize that central functions are not only commercial but they also strengthen the urban character of the city. They also play an important role in the identification of the residents with their city. These functions play a crucial role in defining the city centre both for residents and visitors. This is why it is vital to locate them within the existing city centre. The development of new centers weakens the existing city core in the face of new business and competition. 
A manageable and recognizable centre would support the spatial and social identification with the city. It is especially important, as Riga is so socially diverse.
All this can only be achieved through having a distinctly defined central area and also by the upgrading of the quality of public spaces in the city. The centre should be the focus of planners’ interest. However, then planning should be understood as an action having not only spatial impact but also a social, an ecological and a political impact, too. 

RESIDENTIAL AREAS

In metropolitan cities residential areas do not influence the metropolitan functions, it is the other way round, residential areas are more a by product of the attraction of the city itself. 
Riga suffers from a typical urban sprawl problem. One reason for this, among many, are the needs of a rapidly growing middle class in Latvia to find a better and more suitable place to live. These residences cannot be found within the city due to the fact that the existing capitalist city has its access problems and an insufficient level of housing stock and that the Soviet panel housing districts cannot offer qualitative residences. Last but not least, the Latvian character means that most people prefer to live close to nature. The result is that Riga suffers from the urban sprawl yet at the same time is a “shrinking city”. 

MULTIZONE

In each city there are different functional zones: production, industrial, agricultural to name just a few. But this division is very general both in relation to the existing situation and to the desired one. According to the New Athens Charter and to EU guidelines, monofunctional zones should be avoided. Residential districts without basic services and city centers without residents are examples of the undesired result of such strict zoning. Public spaces, green areas should “glue together” the whole system in respect to priorities such as ecological standards or the maximum floor height. Avoiding monofunctional zoning should therefore be a principle in the rule of zoning. 

MODEL

We would like to present an alternative model to both Riga Development Plans - the recently expired plan and the proposed new plan. Our vision is a graphic representation of an idea, still far from being a finished Development Plan document. It is more a set of guidelines for a direction in which city could develop. By presenting this model we would like to prove that a different attitude is possible and this it is simply not true that only one plan is possible. We do not claim that our proposal is superior but we are merely presenting an alternative. We would like to stimulate a discussion and research towards optimum solutions. In developing a model we also would like to avoid accusations of simply issuing unconstructive criticism and would like to start the discussion from a fundamental level. 
The fundamental principle of our model is the integration of Riga's urban tissue in a social, spatial and also a compositional meaning. The basic value for the model is a proposal which follows the example of many European cities, changing post-industrial areas into central areas. Riga’s structure seems to be very convenient for such a solution: the “capitalist city” is surrounded by industrial areas. Together with the railway they form a tight belt surrounding the capitalist centre. These industrial areas play a dual role in our model.
On one hand it could become a transportation ring including both private and public transport, yet on the other hand these areas provide a perfect location for the further development of the centre. As shown on the scheme, the capitalist city oversteps the ring and uses it to reach the post Soviet panel housing districts. Having an open connection between the ring and the Soviet panel housing districts could provide the necessary motivation to upgrade these areas. Obviously, to make the ring work it would be necessary to build not only a southern bridge but also a northern tunnel/bridge.
The strong centre located in and around the Old City has to be given a chance to further expand. The optimum direction for this would be east/west, along the main city axis of Brivibas Street. This centre would be defined as a social centre and therefore a reduction in private car access to this part of the city is recommended. We also suggest a careful but consistent revitalization of blocks in the area, this would follow the successful example of “Berga Bazars” which has attractive interiors and first floors with commercial functions.
Despite eastern expansion it is also important not to neglect the possibility of linking the centre with the Agenskalns district. To achieve this it would be necessary to use or even rebuild the Stone Bridge in order to allow easy access. Because of its morphology and location, the Agenskalns district centre huge potential to become strong and important local centre. 
The next issue is to reclaim the River for the city. As a product of Soviet planning, Krastmala Street cut off the Daugava from the city. Since then, the city has had its back turned to the Daugava seeming to almost forget about its existence. 
We propose to create a structure which would overstep the road and join the Old City with the river. The structure should contain commercial functions supporting the old city and be a kind of fold, which could be an artificial cityscape on which qualitative waterfront areas would be located. 
One of the most difficult problems for Riga is the Soviet panel housing areas. We propose to raise the density of the existing tissue by adding lower buildings with necessary services to introduce a human dimension to the area. Spatial structure should also allow easy identification of public, semi public, semi private and private spaces. 
Access to services and amenities can be an indicator of sustainable multifunctional land use. The structure of a city should be developed so that within 5 minutes walking distance (300 meters) of a residence there is a grocery store providing, fresh fruit and vegetables, etc, a primary health care facility, a primary school and a public transportation stop with a service interval of half an hour. Just as important is access to a sufficiently large greenspace area (5000 m2) that can be used for recreation. If residents are satisfied with their neighbourhood, including access to quality services, then it is most likely that the need for motorized transportation will be significantly reduced. 

Expansion of the city in the southern direction should be reconsidered, as it appears to be a relict of Soviet heritage. On the contrary Riga should once again face the sea. Further development should, and in fact it already does, stretch between the city centre, the Bolderaja district and Jurmala. 
Further Northern expansion should be stretched along the banks of the Daugava, Also, we suggest that the East and West banks be considered separately.
Nowadays, the majority of industrial functions (including that of the port) are located on the East bank. The cargo port should be moved away from the city center, without intruding into existing settlements and the NATURA areas along the Gulf of Riga, but passenger port functions should remain near its existing location. We suggest the development of this bank as a combined business and industrial zone, which would link the city and the sea.
Conversely, we suggest that the West Bank should be developed as a multi- use ecological, recreational and residential zone development, whereas
existing industrial functions on the West Bank should be reduced as much as possible.