New cities are always a story about ambition. They are not born spontaneously, but at the behest of power, business or a grandiose idea designed to solve a strategic problem. Historically, such projects have been the prerogative of states: St. Petersburg as a “window to Europe,” Brasilia and Astana as new capitals that have concentrated administrative resources. However, in modern Russia, where the process of urbanization is generally completed, and megacities are experiencing a significant load, a natural question arises: is there an economic and social space for cities being built from scratch? An analysis of existing projects – from science cities to private settlements – shows that the answer to it lies not in the plane of urban planning utopia, but in the logic of economic feasibility and integration into existing agglomerations.
Between utopia and economics: the global context
The international experience of recent decades is rather sobering. Grand ambitions are often broken down into questions of funding and realism. Masdar City, the UAE sustainability flagship, that intended to be a zero-carbon footprint city, is still unfinished. An even more telling story is the Saudi “Line,” a futuristic linear city without cars. At the stage of practical implementation, the project was reduced by more than 98% in length – from the initial 170 kilometers to a modest 2.5 kilometers. This is a vivid example of how the architectural concept is retreating before engineering, logistics and economic realities.
Successful cases, on the contrary, work according to a different, less romantic, but more reliable logic – integration and synergy with existing centers. A case in point is South Korea’s Songdo, a smart city with AI-controlled transport. Its viability is ensured not by autonomy, but by proximity to the major port city of Incheon and Seoul. Its population exceeds 218 thousand people precisely because it was originally designed not as an independent unit, but as a high-tech satellite within a large agglomeration, solving the tasks of unloading the capital and creating a modern business environment. This principle of “satellite city” or “cluster city” turns out to be key for Russian realities.
Russian practice: three models of new urban planning
The Russian practice of creating new cities is not homogeneous. Conventionally, it can be divided into three models, differing in development driver, scale and final goals.
The first and most noticeable model is projects with direct state participation and narrow specialization. These are modern analogues of science cities, where the main customer and investor is the state pursuing technological or educational sovereignty.
A classic example is Innopolis in Tatarstan. Founded in 2012, this city is a highly concentrated IT cluster: there is a university teaching about 2,000 students in English, and a special economic zone, whose residents are Yandex, Tinkoff Bank, and Sberbank Technologies. As of 2024, the revenue of the SEZ resident companies amounted to more than 64.6 billion rubles. However, the key metric – demographics – is modest, with just about 5,000 permanent residents with a daily presence of about 7,800. Innopolis does not seek to become a “second Kazan”; it is successful precisely as a compact competence center that effectively uses its proximity to the capital of Tatarstan.
The second model can be called a “private city.” These are projects initiated and financed by big business. The most advanced example is Dobrograd in the Vladimir region, which has been under construction since 2014 at the expense of businessperson Vladimir Sedov. Its concept combines nature and modern technologies, its own SEZ “Dobrograd-1” has been created here. The plans are ambitious – by 2039, the population should reach 50 thousand people, but in 2025 just about 3,000 residents live here. This project demonstrates how difficult and capital-intensive is the way to create a self-sufficient urban environment without the initial powerful city-forming enterprise or the status of an administrative center. Its success depends on the long-term will of the investor and the ability to attract external businesses and new residents with quality of life.
The third, most common model is large urban areas or agglomerations, positioned as “new cities.” In fact, this is a large-scale integrated development of territories on the outskirts of existing large centers. This type includes the Academic District in Yekaterinburg, whose population already exceeds 160 thousand people, as well as Sputnik in Penza, a huge microdistrict with its own developed infrastructure, including the embankment, parks and social facilities. These projects are viable precisely because they are not independent. They solve the existing problem – they provide modern housing and an environment within walking distance from the metropolis, using its economic and labor potential. Moreover, they are a continuation of existing megacities, and not an alternative.
Ambition and reality: projects of the future
Against these relatively established models, projects periodically arise that claim to be a revolutionary leap. In 2025, the Olympia initiative was presented at the BRICS International Municipal Forum – a plan to create multifunctional public and business clusters in the Kaliningrad Region and Krasnodar Territory. The declared parameters are impressive: a medical cluster for the treatment of cancer, an IT hub, a technopark, green energy and the creation of more than a million jobs with the attraction of 350 billion rubles of investments at the first stage, presumably from the Arab Gulf countries. A similar scope is visible in the Emerald Smart City project in the Tomsk Region – a park city for 250 thousand residents with investments of about 500 billion rubles and an implementation period until 2054.
These projects are still in the area of strategic planning. Their implementation will face the same challenges as the Saudi “Line”: the need for colossal long-term investments, the formation from scratch of not only infrastructure, but also the economic base, and most importantly – attracting tens and hundreds of thousands of people who are ready to move to a place that does not yet exist. Without an anchor industrial, logistics or tourism cluster, this task looks quite difficult.
Thus, the creation of new cities in Russia can be economically justified only with a powerful and stable driver. For example, the transfer of administrative functions, the placement of a city-forming enterprise, the formation of the largest logistics hub. More often than not, the model of a “satellite city” or a highly specialized cluster built into the ecosystem of a large agglomeration turns out to be viable. It minimizes risks, uses existing resources and solves applied problems of the development of the metropolis.
The priority is the development of existing cities
In my opinion, in the current economic conditions, the development of existing cities and investments in a comfortable urban environment can rather be called the priority task. This is the modernization of the housing stock, the formation of new public spaces, the development of transport and social infrastructure. Such measures, as a rule, require less resources per unit of effect and more quickly lead to an increase in the quality of life, which ultimately contributes to population growth and economic recovery. History with new cities teaches that they are born not from a big dream, but from a great need. So far, there is no such urgent need, supported by appropriate resources, for the next “city from scratch” in Russia.
By Arseny Kiselev, Commercial Director of the Novalur Small Architectural Forms Plant