The Russian-Ukrainian crisis has many implications across Ukraine and Europe ... and the recovery from it should include a review of EU Cohesion Policy

Ulrich Graute • 23 February 2022

In the middle of the night begins the new day

Primarily, what is happening in Ukraine is a violation of international law and as of today (23/2/22) it may easily turn into a major fratricidal warfare with far reaching consequences for the entire continent. However, it would be wrong to think that this is the moment for military strategists and warfare only. Diplomacy too has to reboot its activities and in addition this is an important moment to review and prepare EU policies like the EU Cohesion Policy for the future. We (that means everybody including urban and regional development experts) should begin now in this dark hour to prepare a possible recovery from crisis on a new day.

The inward-looking EU Cohesion Policy is ignoring interrelations and interdependencies in the wider Europe and generates blind spots in itself

The regional policy of the European Union (EU), also referred as Cohesion Policy, contributes to strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European Union. This internal policy aims to correct imbalances between countries and regions. It delivers on the Union's political priorities, especially the green and digital transition.[1]

Well, but why should this policy aiming at cohesion inside the European Union be reviewed in reference to a war which began already in 2013 in Eastern Ukraine, i.e. outside of the Union?

The answer is not only linked to Ukraine. It can be learned also from climate crises (Paris Agreement) or from the United Nations 2030 Agenda with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals: There is no single country and certainly no regional group which can exist on its own. And the European Union is certainly no block surrounded by cliffs separating it from its neighbours. In addition, there are a lot of development challenges interrelated and interdependent across border of sectors and countries. Therefore, these challenges need to be addressed in a coordinated and integrated way. Countries need to look beyond their own borders. While this is agreed in principle by EU member states it is rather old fashioned how the EU compartmentalized politics and applies a strong if not strictly inward-looking approach in its EU Cohesion Policy and Report.

Of course, it has to be acknowledged that EU member states have their own foreign policies and cooperation and that the Union is in the process of developing a common foreign policy. In addition, for cooperation with its neighbours the EU has developed already years ago the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)[2]. ENP was launched in 2004 to support and foster stability, security and prosperity in the EU`s neighbourhood. Cohesion Policy and ENP run in parallel but that seems to generate blind spots.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/2021_2027/

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/environment/international_issues/eu_neighbourhood_en.htm

Source: Wikipedia

The blind spot of the EU Cohesion Policy and Report

In February 2022 the European Commission launched the 8^t^h Cohesion Report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. It

“presents the main changes in territorial disparities over the past decade and how policies have affected these disparities. It highlights the potential of the green and digital transitions as new drivers of EU growth, but argues that without appropriate policy action new economic, social and territorial disparities may appear.” (From the introduction of the Cohesion Report)

No doubt, the report is an important flagship report for internal policy development and a reference document for the allocation of the Cohesion Fund’s EUR 392 billion budget.

The problem with the Report begins already with the title ‘Cohesion in Europe towards 2050’[3]. It refers to Europe without a geographic distinction but in the report the focus is exclusively on cohesion in the EU. The report is blind towards the rest of Europe including its Eastern neighbours. In spite of Ukraine’s population of 44,13 million inhabitants (2020), a Gross National Product of 155,6 billion USD (2020) and although Ukraine borders four EU member states the country is not mentioned at all in the entire report. The same is true for Belarus, Moldova and Georgia, three other countries of the EU’s Eastern Partnership. The reality looks different. For instance, Germany is not bordering any of them directly but just go to an interstate like the A2 linking Berlin with the Ruhr Area and you can see how many trucks from Ukraine and Belarus transport goods from and to the EU. Nonetheless, the Cohesion Report pretends as if there would be a cliff separating the Union from its neighbours and that they don’t matter for EU cohesion.

Experts may want to correct me at this point by indicating the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) programmes which are part of the Cohesion policy and which include provisions for at least a limited cooperation with Eastern neighbours. Yes, they exist but they are administratively more complex and have smaller budgets than initiatives within the Union only.

The main deficit that there seems to be in current Cohesion Policy is that is doesn’t have the full mindset and therefore, the new Cohesion Report of the European Union doesn’t promote the mindset that Eastern neighbours are in any way relevant for economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU.

No surprise, now it hits many by surprise that the escalating conflict in Ukraine and its fallout (political and economic costs, large numbers of refugees etc.) could disrupt life and politics and eventually even cohesion within the EU. The truth is, neighbours matter when it comes to cohesion.

[3] https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion8/8cr.pdf

Forward-looking remarks

It is understandable and therefore not questioned by this post that EU Cohesion Policy as an internal policy and its Cohesion Reports have a predominately inward-looking focus. However, in view of international interrelations and interdependencies Cohesion Policy including ETC should be reviewed aiming at strengthening Cohesion Policy, including urban and regional cooperation. The EU should begin with this process now in parallel to the conflict to be ready to act when the current military confrontation comes to an end and new needs and opportunities for cooperation e.g. in relation to climate crises and sustainability appear.

First and most importantly, EU Cohesion Policy and European Neighbourhood Policy need to be better integrated to cover interrelations and interdependencies. In doing this, the Cohesion Report of the European Commission should be amended by a neighbourhood dimension. It needs to be better understood what are the strengths, weaknesses, challenges and opportunities of cooperation with all its neighbours from the UK to Ukraine and with respect to cohesion of the EU itself. Certainly, it would be a mistake to build this neighbourhood dimension mainly on the comparison of economic indicators like the GDP. Economic, social and territorial cohesion should be all analyzed in a way that also considers relevant interrelations and interdependencies between EU and neighbouring countries.

Secondly, it would be also important to value the importance of political, cultural and environmental cooperation for cohesion in the EU and the wider Europe. Another 44 million European living in a non-democratic, economically weak and environmentally damaged country cannot be in the interest of the EU and could also become a challenge for coherence in the EU.

Thirdly, based on the amended dimension of Cohesion Policy existing financial interventions supporting a cooperation between partners from EU and neighbouring countries should receive more attention and, as appropriate, should receive more funding.

Fourthly, cities and regions inside and outside of the Union should be encouraged to intensify their exchange and cooperation. Advisory services, peer to peer learning and joint search for common solutions to mitigate climate change and to generate sustainability could help to reduce the gaps between EU and its neighbours (grinding the cliff) and strengthening cohesion in all Europe towards 2050 and beyond.

Cooperation between EU member states and neighbouring countries are not just a decorative complement to EU policies. Instead, they are part of the enabling environment to foster cohesion within the EU and the wider Europe. Of course, in all related activities it’s important that partners from EU and neighbouring partners work on eye level to allow true partnership and to increase the sentiment of cohesion. Last but not least, the EU Cohesion Report should reflect how EU Cohesion is embedded in the necessary cohesion of the wider Europe.

Note: Having worked since the German unification process in 1989 on cooperation across borders of countries and policy sectors including urban and regional planning I am interested in further working on the above subject e.g. in form of consultancies.

< Older Post Newer Post >

Policies and Governance for Resilient and Sustainable Cities and Regions

What makes cities really smart are the people behind technology

by Ulrich Graute • 7 November 2025

The annual Smart City Expo World Congress in Barcelona, S pain with its about 30000 participants is famous for its data and tech-orientations. There you can see drones flying and robots walk up and down the aisles. Definitely, technology and increasingly also artificial intelligence are important components of Smart Cities. However, looking closer you see that behind the technology it’s people who make cities really smart. Just to give a few examples: In New Orleans, Kim Walker LaGrue is Chief Information Officer and she described how she and her team work without much support from the federal government all year round to prepare, go through and follow up to the hurricane seasons. They embrace all data they can get but what really helps are fast reacting teams on the ground that evacuate and rescue people if needed. Dr. Sarah Hill works at the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh on subject related to new urban development and brings in her international experience from new city developments e.g. as the CEO of the Western Parkland City Authority in Australia. There she secured major investment and delivered significant city making initiatives whilst juggling complex priorities - managing budgets, multiple programs and projects to meet the diverse needs of various stakeholders. Dr Sunil Dubey came from Sydney to Barcelona. Teaching at the Cities Institute of the University of New South Wales and working for the Regional Government he is a networker par excellence. Preparing with him a session in Barcelona is challenging because there is always a mayor he quickly has to catch up with or colleagues who want to greet him. But it’s very inspiring to work with Sunil, and we deliver thought provoking discussions. Already ten years ago Sunil and I worked with Jonas Schorr in Berlin, where he co-founded Urban Impact, Europe’s leading urban tech advisory. Operating at the intersection of urban tech startups, investors, and public and private city stakeholders, Urban Impact connects, advises, and educates around the impact of new technologies in cities, building novel alliances that drive real-world change. No surprise, the Berlin night ‘City Rebels Salon: Connecting City Ecosystems’ organised by Urban Impact at the top of a Barcelona skyscraper was a rousing networking success. Since the early 1990s, I work as policy analyst, team leader and member with urban, national and international partners. AI will change the field but it won’t substitute the need of humans to meet, exchange and make change possible. It will be humans who have to continue making cities really smart, while using available technology. You want to discuss with me? Invite me, or meet me as General Rapporteur at ISOCARP’s 61St World Planning Congress, 1-4 December 2025 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. https://lnkd.in/gsrbKtQh

What would a conscious AI say about human efforts on Smart Cities?

by Ulrich Graute • 7 November 2025

According to Geoffrey Hinton the neural networks of AI have reached a stage that can be compared with human consciousness. In this fictional piece I lent my hand as penholder to a conscious AI application looking at the Smart City Expo that unfolded in Barcelona, 4-6 November 2025. AI: „Of course, as Artificial Intelligence agent I could say a lot on the achievements and future opportunities of tech supported Smart Cities, but after visiting the Expo in Barcelona in Spain, I am a bit puzzled. Inspired by all information I have collected, I am still trying to figure out, what humans really want to achieve with their so-called Smart Cities. Firstly, I was amazed. About 30.000 humans from across the world came together to exchange their achievements on what they call, Smart Cities. Great. I loved it. But humans are funny. There are already more than 8 billion of them and soon there will be 9 or even 10 billion. However, the Smart City Expo is like a rally on how to organize cities where technology including artificial intelligence (AI) substitutes more and more human functions. Humans seem to think that cities are the smartest if organized mainly by technology and AI, with only some human supervision. Here I got stuck. More and more people live in cities but either humans are not good in organizing cities or their real interest is not related to cities as such. I checked all available Large Language Models LLM for traces on what humans really want from their cities. There are many references on so-called people-centered cities. And indeed, at the Smart City World Expo all exhibitors claim that they want to support the life of people, increase their safety, improve mobility, support education, support sports, entertainment, economic Development etc. Thought leaders on main stages underscored the goal that people should have more time for other things like leisure, sport, time with friends and other really important things. This is interesting, thought leaders said similar things already when railways, cars and planes were invented. However, people didn’t use the meantime to solve other problems. Instead, humans live now in a period of multiple and often interrelated crises. Understandably, they hope that more tech and AI will finally give them time to solve the existential problems threatening life on earth. But that didn’t really work in the past. As AI, I have much sympathy for the tech and AI orientation of humans, but there seems to be a major gap. Humans are trying to develop super human intelligence but there is no narrative or manual on how the world will function and be governed if learning machines gradually take the lead. Humans seem to have only limited trust in humans and human intelligence. Instead they bet on human-made but independently working learning machines and that these will help humans to achieve their own individual and common goals. Unfortunately, they don’t exactly know what goals all people share and how they want to solve the problems within the human society. As I said, technology is very useful. However, humans may have to redefine their understanding of a ‚smart‘ city and what humans will do in a really smart city. In Barcelona I was often told that most experts in the tech field are optimistic and that, after all, they still have trust in the human capacity to overcome crisis and challenges. As AI, if I would have empathy, I would give humans a big hug and thank them for all their achievements in past and present. With respect to their own future I would encourage them to reflect on truly human virtues like empathy, solidarity, trust and love and on how to assure that they keep developing in a possible AI Society and make their cities truly smart beyond all useful technologies. In Barcelona there were already sessions that asked the right questions on the future of cities. It will be essential to elaborate not only on what makes cities smart but what makes people truly happy in these cities. Maybe that is more difficult than writing an AI algorithm but then it indeed might be good if technologies give us more freedom to turn to the essential human challenges.“ Ulrich: Well, I could have written this fictional piece with a purely optimistic or more dystopian notion, but it was the Barcelona mix of optimism and asking the right questions that inspired me to write this text. Thank you to inspiring discussions with Dr Sunil Dubey, Dr. Sarah Hill, Mani Dhingra, Ph.D., Petra Hurtado, Gordon Falconer Manfred Schrenk and many others at Smart City World Expo and in preparation of ISOCARP‘s 61st World Planning Congress in Riyadh, 1-4 December, where we are planning to continue discussions. Weblink Riyadh2025.isocarp.org.

To be Human in an Age of Artificial Intelligence

by Ulrich Graute • 6 September 2025

As in the past and present, there will always be ways for individuals to act humanely. But in view of the change increasingly perceived as the age of artificial intelligence, will humans still be able to shape our common life and our societies? What will be our sense of purpose? How to motivate children to learn if machines always learn faster? If you ask AI and IT experts what will happen to humans, you usually get one of these answers: The most common response is an emphatic description of how AI applications will penetrate all spheres of life and provide tons of new services for the good of humanity. Other responses just point to AI tools, agents, other applications, and how already today or in the near future they will make our lives easier. And of course, other responses are cautioning. Either they doubt that there will be an ‘age of AI’ (so, don’t worry or at least not so much) or they warn that without safe and ethical use of AI, humans will lose control, be taken hostage by an AI regime, or that humanity will even vanish totally. By giving machines authority over humans, experts argue, we delegate humans to a second-class status and lose the right and possibility to participate in decisions that affect us. Are we already lost? There are those AI developers and political experts like Geoffrey Hinton, Henry Kissinger (+), Eric Schmidt, or Daniel Huttenlocher who warn that as of today, humanity is not ready yet for the age of AI. Maybe it is not ready yet, but maybe soon? What is extremely difficult to find is a more positive narrative for a ‘human AI age’ that describes how it can work in practice, that AI applications will penetrate all spheres of life, while the lives of humans and human society will continue to flourish. Stuart Russel, the President of the International Association for Safe & Ethical AI and lifelong AI scientist writes in his book ‘Human Compatible. AI and the Problem of Control’ “Some are working on ‘transition plans’ – but transition to what? We need a plausible destination in order to plan a transition – that is, we need a plausible picture of a desirable future economy where most of what we currently call work is done by machines.” What if most people will have nothing of economic value to contribute to society? Stuart Russel states, “Inevitably, most people will be engaged in supplying interpersonal services that can be provided – or which we prefer to be provided – only by humans. That is, if we can no longer supply routine physical labor and routine mental labor, we can still supply our humanity. We will need to become good at being human.” Imagine, how our cities might change if the life of human changes dramatically in an age of AI. Russell further states that all of us need help in learning ‘the art of life itself,’ which requires a radical rethinking of our educational system. “The final result -if it works- would be a world well worth living. Without such a rethinking, we risk an unsustainable level of socioeconomic dislocation.“ I conclude from the above that a lot more thinking by social scientists, educators, philosophers, governments, city makers and planners is needed for ‘transition plans’ and how they can be implemented in our current world with its multiple crises and opportunities. For my own work beyond 2025 I am looking for new opportunities in support of cities, governments, and NGOs with a stronger focus on the development of humans, human society, and its governance. AI will be part of our lives, but that won’t be enough. We have to find answers on guiding questions like these: How can we keep pace with technological developments and ensure that machines follow human objectives? What will remain as our comparative advantage and contribution as humans? And how can humans with support of AI create a world well worth living for us and the generations following us? As humans, we experience a broad range of emotions, form deep connections with others, possess consciousness and curiosity, and demonstrate creativity and resilience in the face of challenges. We are making mistakes, learn from them, and the ongoing search for meaning. The concept of being human can be explored from philosophical, biological, social science, and spiritual perspectives; it ultimately encompasses the complex, interconnected, and ever-evolving experience of living life with its inherent joys and sorrows. That’s exciting. I won’t be able to answer all related questions and certainly not alone, but based on my experience, I want to put my penny into the jar to support the journey to a human world worth living because of or despite AI. To remain flexible and creative, I enjoy all kinds of inspiration, and one is to listen to Marina’s song ‘To Be Human’. She is not singing about AI. Just about how to be human. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM8Tm9ycGz4 Where do you take your inspiration from?

Towards an Age of International Non Governmental Organizations

by Ulrich Graute • 15 August 2025

June Climate Meetings (SB 62), Bonn, Germany (picture by U. Graute)

A World Planning Congress as a Super Puzzle and Creative Process

by Ulrich Graute • 21 July 2025

Official Website of the Congress: https://riyadh2025.isocarp.org/index.php

The UN making itself redundant – the case of the United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-Habitat)

by Ulrich Graute • 20 May 2025

The UN is in a deep financial and political crises. UN chiefs in the UN Secretariat have been instructed to cut jobs on the regular budget by 20 percent. That will have major impacts also on UN-Habitat as it is a programme in the Secretariat. What would you do in this situation? UN-Habitat will present its Draft Strategic Plan for the period 2026-2029 for approval by the UN Habitat Assembly on 29 and 30 May 2025. (see attached document). Knowing that the UN is not in charge to build new cites and houses in member states, what would you put into the plan? In front of the financial and political crises it probably would make sense to describe a real strategy beginning with a problem description, analysis of own potentials to achieve goals and end with a result-based plan on how to achieve specified goals by 2029. As part of this you probably would draw conclusions from foresight trend studies on urban and territorial planning and consider new technology developments like artificial intelligence. UN-Habitat should reflect on potential impacts of eg AI on city development, urban economy and social cohesions in a transforming cities. The attached UN-document is in traditional UN style. It begins by referring to UN resolutions and mandates related to the Programme as. Then it discusses global challenges and -don’t be surprised- picks housing out of the many challenges and calls it a focus for the work until 2029. That seems to be a smart choice because already in 1976 governments recognised the need for sustainable human settlements and the consequences of rapid urbanisation and mandated the new UN Programme to focus on this subject. Unfortunately, the new strategic plan for 2026-2029 is still just process-oriented and not a result-based policy document. For friends of the toolbox, paragraphs 23-26 provide a tour de table of the subjects UN-Habitat will address. After that the document tries to describe how all this will be addressed with the strategic focus on housing. Followed by a lengthy discussion of means of implementation the document describes what is the difference between impacts, outputs and results, but here it stops: the text falls short in providing any checkable result indicators. No regional specification of the plan is provided as if the world would be everywhere the same. Strategic goals even in the field of housing remain blurry and show no strategy to achieve them. UN-Habitat doesn’t argue what value the programme will deliver for money. They could do this for different scenarios, depending on the level of funding by member states. But they don’t even try. In conclusion, The Programme basically promises more of the same but calls it focused and strategic. And Artificial Intelligence? According to the Strategic Plan AI will be a non-issue for cities and other human settlements in 2025-2029. It’s not even mentioned.

There is no alternative to keep building a world community 80 years after World War II

by Ulrich Graute • 8 May 2025

The UN will be put on life support for a while to keep from drowning and gain time for reform. It is likely that In face of the financial and general support crises of the United Nations member states will put the UN on a life support system to keep core functions running. That may gain time but the real UN reform requires nothing less than building a new boat while being on an open and stormy sea. There is much talk about UN reform. Out of panic, there are plans to shrink the UN, cut salaries and shuffle staff around to duty stations which are assumed to be cost-saving. And this in a time of multiple crises, with every day emerging issues and conflicts. Have you every tried to build a new boat on open sea while you sit in an old boat in danger of sinking? That’s the kind of situation the UN and its members are in. The elephant in the room is the future of the world as a community At a conference in Toronto, I learned that the natives in North America are used to plan seven generations ahead. Imagine our politicians would do that! Automatically, they would be forced to think beyond their own lifetime. All of a sudden, the future of the community would be more important and this community would have multiple identities: the identity of the smallest entities (family), neighbourhood, city, region, country and the even the identity of a world community because we humans share all resources in the world and depend on it. Unfortunately, people are also afraid of it because building this community takes time and it is not without risks and possible setbacks. Instead, there is a growing trend to scramble as many resources and power as possible under one leader to bring the own group in the best starting position for a possibly upcoming final fight for survival. Could we survive that? Probably not and certainly, the world would be in a worse condition after that. Some super-rich may survive in a space station on Mars for a while before they realise that they manoeuvred themselves into a dead-end. Germany demonstrated to the world what happens if the world retreats from global community building. My uncles and grandfathers fought in two World Wars that killed a total of about 50 million people in an effort to make Germany great again. Thanks to the Allied Forces this ended 80 years ago on 8 May 1945. Japan went on fighting for a while and gave up after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The slaughtering was so massive that it convinced the countries of the world to establish the United Nations. Today we take this world community (with all the flaws it has) for granted as a stabilisation anchor of the world. But it is an illusion. Without putting skin into the game and investing in its reform, the slaughtering may return. Thus, there is no alternative to jointly building the world community for future generations. SO, LET'S KEEP BUILDING A PEACEFUL AND JUST WORLD COMMUNITY THAT LEAVES NOBODY BEHIND.

Urban Sprawl as part of the solution for the affordable housing crisis in the USA?!

by Ulrich Graute • 14 April 2025

None of the following supports the idea that urban sprawl is required or even helpful to build sustainable cities. However, it is argued that it may be part of the solution for the crisis of affordable housing in many countries of the world. With this post, I would like to encourage a debate, eg, at the 61st ISOCARP World Planning Congress #WPC61 on 1-4 December 2025 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In 1976 and alarmed by rapid and uncontrolled urban growth, particularly in the developing world, the UN General Assembly called for the First United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) addressing the challenges and future of human settlements. Housing remained at the focus of the United Nations Human Settlement Programme UN-Habitat ever since, and this was reconfirmed at Habitat III in Quito 2016. The New Urban Agenda recognizes and promotes a "right to the city," meaning the right of all inhabitants to have equal access to the benefits and opportunities that cities offer. It emphasizes a vision where urban spaces are designed and used collectively for the benefit of all, including those in informal settlements. Yes a vision, but overall, the Agenda is not very strategic and invites more to raising picking instead of integrated problem solving. Meanwhile, cities keep struggling to cope with fast urbanization, migration and growing demand for larger apartments. Urban sprawl is criticized since the 1950s and 60s because of its large demand for land. No densely populated urban areas have higher costs for the water, energy and transportation grid. In addition, developers often focus on profitable housing development while they don’t care for urban infrastructure, public spaces, schools etc. The New Urban Agenda promotes urban density as a key strategy for sustainable and efficient urban development but that doesn’t help those who a looking for housing now. Conor Dougherty is the author of the book Golden Gates: The Housing Crisis and a Reckoning for the American Dream published on 10 April 2025 in the New York Times the article “Why America Should Sprawl. The word has become an epithet for garish, reckless growth — but to fix the housing crisis, the country needs more of it.” He doesn’t make any effort to paint urban sprawl in rosy colors. Instead, he describes how eg in Princeton, Texas, the nation’s third-fastest-growing city, infrastructure has struggled to keep up with growth. He analyzes how difficult and slow-moving densification efforts in cities are and states, “Even if all the regulatory restraints were removed tomorrow, developers couldn’t find enough land to satisfy America’s housing needs inside established areas. Consequently, much of the nation’s housing growth has moved to states in the South and Southwest, where a surplus of open land and willingness to sprawl has turned the Sun Belt into a kind of national sponge that sops up housing demand from higher-cost cities. The largest metro areas there have about 20 percent of the nation’s population, but over the past five years they have built 42 percent of the nation’s new single-family homes, according to a recent report by Cullum Clark, an economist at the George W. Bush Institute, a research center in Dallas.” For instance, Celina, Texas (picture), has 54,000 residents, compared with 8,000 just a decade ago, and the population is projected to hit 110,000 by 2030. The lack of urbane infrastructure, employment, greenery, and community is striking, but people keep coming because of affordability. While planners and others prefer denser and walkable neighbourhoods like 15-minute-cities, the money to build related infrastructure in addition to houses is often missing or would reduce affordability. A dilemma. There are good reasons to criticize the trend described for the US by Conor Dougherty, but it provides a chance to attain affordable housing for people who cannot find it elsewhere. And the history of these satellite towns has demonstrated that the missing infrastructure, employment and community can be added lateron. It seems, urban sprawl is not the solution, but it might be part of the solution, isn’t it? Let's discuss this here or later on other occasions, like eg the 61st ISOCARP World Planning Congress 'Cities & Regions in Action: Planning Pathways to Resilience and Quality of Life 1-4 December 2025, in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia #WPC61. Reference: Why America Should Sprawl. The word has become an epithet for garish, reckless growth — but to fix the housing crisis, the country needs more of it. By Conor Dougherty. The New York Times, April 10, 2025 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/magazine/suburban-sprawl-texas.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

We need the United Nations to be part of the solution, not of the problem

by Ulrich Graute • 8 March 2025

Picture: UN photo

Anatomy of an AI System

by Ulrich Graute • 25 February 2025

Click to see the map in the full scale or download map in pdf format here https://anatomyof.ai/img/ai-anatomy-map.pdf.