Uzbekistan: the chaotic development of Tashkent undermines the foundations of urban planning policy

In the capital of Uzbekistan, the conflict between residents and developers continues to deepen, caused by the violation of urban planning standards during the implementation of new construction projects. The lack of effective state control in the field of development regulation forces ordinary citizens — pensioners, teachers, engineers, parents — to take on the functions of professional urban planners and human rights defenders.

One of the most resonant cases was the situation in the mahalla "Bogsaroy", where it is planned to erect three 30-storey buildings on the territory previously occupied by the hotel. The project is being implemented in close proximity to residential buildings and a kindergarten, which has already caused widespread discontent on the part of local residents.

According to the Urban Development Code of Uzbekistan, the interests of society should be given priority when planning development (Article 4). However, in practice, the mechanism for implementing this principle is insufficient. Violations cover several areas at once:

First, there is no full-fledged public comment procedure. According to articles 8, 10 and 40 of the Urban Planning Code, residents should be aware of projects that affect their living environment. In this case, the development was started without consulting the population of the mahalla.

Secondly, the project does not meet the current standards. According to SHNK 2.07.01-03, the height of residential buildings must correspond to demographic and climatic conditions. Low-rise and medium-rise buildings (from 4 to 12 floors) are provided for areas with dense development. The project of three 30-storey towers is out of bounds.

Third, a building of this scale belongs to the IV category of risk objects (according to decree No. 496), which makes its placement in a residential area unacceptable. In addition, Tashkent is located in a 9-point seismic zone, which requires strict compliance with SNiP KMK 2.01.03-19 during construction. Placing high-rise structures in such conditions creates additional threats.

There was also a significant increase in the density of buildings in the mahalla. According to the relevant design organizations, the actual level exceeds the permissible indicator by 135 percent. This means that there is no reserve of territories for social and engineering infrastructure — kindergartens, schools, and recreation areas. As a result, instead of the planned development of the district, compaction is implemented, ignoring the design load on the water supply, electricity and sewerage networks.

Residents also pay attention to the risks associated with the quality of construction. Despite the developer's statements about the use of modern technologies, citizens refer to the tragic events that occurred in a number of regions of Turkey, where similar technologies failed to ensure safety in seismically active zones.

The legal side of the issue also raises concerns. All the arguments put forward by residents were previously considered by the courts in similar conflicts — and were found to be justified. However, there is still a danger of revising urban planning standards under the pressure of economic interests. In particular, the legalization of cutting down green spaces through so-called "tree banks" and increasing the permissible number of storeys without taking into account local conditions are discussed.

According to article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the law "On Public Control", citizens have the right to participate in monitoring the activities of government bodies, including the sphere of urban development. However, public control alone cannot replace professional State supervision. It should complement the work of specialized bodies under the Cabinet of Ministers and other relevant structures.

The incident in the Bogsaroy mahalla illustrates the crisis of trust between society and the construction process management system. In the absence of effective dialogue and formal transparency, residents are forced to defend their right to a favorable and safe urban environment independently-while performing the functions that state bodies should perform in a full-fledged system.