Questions about private property and the potential demolition of buildings caused the greatest concern. Residents were actively inquiring whether their homes, including Stalin-era and panel buildings located along main streets, would be affected.
The city administration and developers repeatedly emphasized that the master plan does not foresee the demolition of homes, and renovation can only occur with the consent of the owners. Nevertheless, each such response included a caveat that specific decisions regarding street expansions and functional land use would be made after the plan is approved — at subsequent stages of urban planning. This creates uncertainty for residents, despite official guarantees.
Photo by the Bishkek City Administration. Master Plan-2030
The issue of red lines and the accessibility of information also caused tension. Discussion participants noted that residents do not know where the red lines are and what restrictions they impose. Developers acknowledged that the previous master plan was not accessible to the public. Now, the authorities intend to publish materials electronically, except for engineering sections, which many consider an important step toward restoring trust in the document.
The topic of functional zoning and color coding of areas generated wide interest. Residents tried to understand what each color on the map means and what rights to construction it provides. The responses indicated that the red zone is designated for multi-story construction, the purple zone for multifunctional facilities, the green zone for landscaped areas, and the white zone for lands undergoing amnesty. However, people were more concerned about the legal implications: whether it is possible to process documents, build, or reconstruct housing now.
Particular concern arose regarding green zones. During the hearings, many residents expressed fears that their plots ended up in landscaping zones, despite being private property with residential buildings. Some responses stated that comments would be taken into account and the boundaries of green zones would be adjusted, while in other cases, references were made to previously approved construction projects.
The authorities also assured the restoration of irrigation systems and the development of watering, noting that without this, the expansion of green zones loses its meaning.
As for the transportation aspect of the discussion, it demonstrated a gap between residents' expectations and the logic of the urban planning document. Citizens raised questions about expanding streets to 6-8 lanes, creating new roads, organizing parking, and pedestrian infrastructure. The responses boiled down to the fact that the master plan only defines the direction of street network development, while specific parameters will be clarified later.
It was also noted that the document does not provide for the construction of a metro; instead, trams, urban rail, and bus rapid transit are proposed. Many practical questions, such as sidewalks, stops, and underground passages, were not related to the tasks of the master plan.
Equally important was the aspect of social infrastructure. Citizens and deputies pointed out the lack of schools, kindergartens, and medical institutions, especially in areas of individual construction and annexed territories. The city administration's responses indicated that schools and kindergartens are planned on reserved municipal lands, and in multi-story construction, social facilities must be provided as a requirement, but specific addresses and timelines for implementation were not mentioned.
Questions regarding land amnesty and the transformation of plots were also discussed. Residents were curious about the fate of houses built after 2021 and why areas with utilities and actual construction are still considered agricultural lands. The responses explained that such plots are temporarily marked in white, and their status will be reviewed upon completion of the amnesty procedures. For transformation issues, it is suggested to apply through the established procedure.
In conclusion, the public hearings demonstrated that the master plan is perceived by residents not as a strategic document, but as a tool that has a direct impact on their daily lives.
The main demands of society boil down to three key points: clear guarantees regarding private property, open access to maps and red lines, and a real connection between development plans and the transportation system, green zones, and social infrastructure.
The level of trust in the master plan and its practical implementation will depend on how consistently the city responds to these requests.
