The new Department of Coordination is being established as of 1 July. What led the IPR Prague to make this change, and what will change in practice?

The Department of Coordination is the de facto successor to the former Department of Urban Design. It’s not just a new name, but also a new way of working. The approval of the Metropolitan Plan marked the end of a major chapter, and this naturally led to changes in some of IPR Prague’s areas of focus. For example, work on amending the existing Land Use Plan and on the preparation of the Metropolitan Plan itself has been completed.

At the same time, the city now expects us to take on new activities. The importance of more detailed documentation for the development of individual neighborhoods, planning agreements, and regulatory drawings is growing. It was therefore necessary to adapt the organizational structure to reflect what the IPR will be focusing on in the coming years.

Together with Michal Leňo, who now heads the newly established Metropolitan Planning Section, we therefore designed the new structure to create two closely collaborating sections. Previously, certain areas of work were more separate; today, we want them to flow seamlessly into one another and support each other.

What exactly is the Department of Coordination responsible for?

The Department of Coordination will handle everything related to the development of specific areas in Prague. As soon as a specific location—rather than all of Prague—is being addressed, it will fall under our team’s purview—whether it involves a land-use study, a planning agreement, a regulatory drawing, or the assessment of a major project. Our task will be to ensure that individual projects develop in accordance with the city’s long-term vision and that they build upon one another.

A major new development is planning agreements, which will gain in importance alongside the Metropolitan Plan. Through these agreements, the city negotiates with investors not only on the design of new developments but also on the benefits they will bring to the surrounding area—such as schools, preschools, parks, or financial contributions to public infrastructure. Part of these negotiations is a regulatory plan, which sets out the basic rules for future development and provides both the city and its residents with greater certainty about how the area in question will develop.

Our role is primarily to provide an expert perspective. We draw on analytical data regarding urban development, demographics, and the needs for public amenities, and we help establish conditions so that new development meets the needs of the specific location. The planning agreements themselves, however, are the result of an agreement between the city and the investor, and their approval is a political decision.

In the future, our section will also be responsible for amendments to the Metropolitan Plan.

The new section is divided into four regional offices. Why did you choose this particular model, and what will it bring to Prague?

We divided the individual offices according to Prague’s districts because we want each team to develop a long-term understanding of “their” areas and guide them through the entire development process. When a new project is launched today, it’s important that the people assessing its compliance with regulations also have a thorough understanding of the area’s history, previous documentation, and the city’s long-term goals. This allows us to ensure greater continuity and higher-quality decision-making.

We’ve divided Prague into four regional offices—Center, West, Northeast, and Southeast.

Furthermore, the entire section is methodologically overseen by Luboš Križan, who will ensure a consistent professional approach across all offices and will also focus on the implementation of new technologies, including the use of artificial intelligence. Luboš was previously the head of the Office of Spatial Coordination and has long been dedicated to methodology and improving our operations. He gained crucial experience, for example, in the process of preparing the competition and planning contracts for Florenc 21, in which he participated from the very beginning.

What types of projects is your section currently working on? Where can Prague residents encounter the results of your work in their everyday lives?

Our work can be seen in a number of major Prague projects, ranging from new neighborhoods in Bubny-Zátory or Smíchov to smaller residential projects in individual city districts. We’re involved from the very beginning and strive to ensure that the result is not just new buildings, but also a high-quality urban environment.

In practice, this means that we evaluate both private development and public projects on behalf of the city and monitor how they will integrate with their surroundings. We’re interested in how the streets will function, whether there will be enough trees and space for pedestrians, and whether the new development will contribute to the quality of public space. In doing so, we rely on all the methodologies and manuals that Prague has in place.

For example, we recently reviewed a project for municipal apartments in Prague 13. We supported the idea of new construction itself, but we proposed changing its layout. This should result in a higher-quality public space with a more active ground level and better connectivity to Jeremiášova Street, rather than having new traffic burden the surrounding residential neighborhood.

Is there a typical flaw in projects that you often comment on?

We probably deal with the design of streets most frequently. We often point out that proposals unnecessarily prioritize cars over pedestrians. A typical example is perpendicular parking spaces, which take up a large portion of public space and take away from sidewalks or trees.

Another major issue is how new buildings connect to the street. Today, for example, we advocate for sidewalk crossings instead of traditional driveways, which keep the sidewalk at a single level and make pedestrian movement more comfortable and safer. It’s a detail that significantly impacts the city’s day-to-day functioning. We also regularly address rainwater management.

You also mentioned greater use of artificial intelligence. How specifically can it help you with urban planning?

We currently use artificial intelligence in two ways. The first is a tool we’re developing for investors and city districts. As part of the New Prague Neighborhoods project, we’re creating an AI assistant for investors and city districts that will be able to clearly explain which requirements apply to a specific project. Instead of having to search through complex methodologies or spreadsheets, users will simply be able to ask: “I want to build on this lot. What must I keep in mind?” The AI will provide an answer based on Prague’s rules, guidelines, and legislation. We’d like to launch a pilot version later this year.

The second area of focus is the use of AI directly within IPR. A large part of our work involves preparing expert opinions, which can be repetitive in certain situations. Artificial intelligence could help us with their preparation and administration. This would allow us to devote more time to what matters most: negotiating projects and finding the best possible solutions for the city.

Many projects are developed in collaboration with city districts, developers, city hall, and the public. How challenging is it to reconcile the interests of all stakeholders and reach a mutual agreement?

A large part of our work actually involves finding common ground. City districts, investors, designers, the police, transportation specialists, and other institutions often come together around the same table, and each has slightly different priorities. Our task is to find a solution that will work for the entire city.

Often, it’s not a matter of a fundamental disagreement, but rather looking at the problem from a different angle. For example, a project might call for a dead-end street or a missing crosswalk because it was based on a single specific requirement. We strive to come up with an alternative that will work well not only from a transportation perspective but also for pedestrians, public spaces, and the surrounding development.

A major advantage is that we work closely with the Department of Infrastructure and the Office of Public Space. Thanks to this, we are able to propose solutions that are backed by expert knowledge and have a better chance of succeeding in further discussions.

Equally important to us is our collaboration with the city districts. We regularly participate in their development committees, share information about upcoming projects, and strive to align the expectations of all stakeholders as early as possible.

How would you like to see the Department of Coordination functioning in ten years?

I would like the city and the municipal districts to view us first and foremost as a partner—not as an institution that shows up at the end of a project with more comments, but as a team that helps find good solutions right from the start. When people communicate with each other early on, most problems can be prevented.

I’d also like us to be better at communicating about our work. Much of what we do is behind the scenes and takes place during meetings, in feedback, or while seeking compromises. Yet it is precisely this “painstaking work” that often determines how new spaces in the city will function.

What do you think is the key to successful negotiation?

The most important thing is to approach negotiations with an open mind and a willingness to understand the other side’s needs as well. When someone defends only their own perspective, an agreement usually doesn’t happen.

It’s just as important not to come in with only criticism, but to also offer alternative solutions. It’s not enough to say that something isn’t working. You need to show a path forward that will be acceptable to everyone involved.

And finally, you need to view compromise as a success. In our line of work, compromise isn’t a defeat. On the contrary. When we manage to find a solution that all parties can live with, that’s a major success.