Between Reconstruction and Identity
The reconstruction of Agdam is more than just an urban planning project – it is an attempt to recreate a lost city without forgetting its past. After nearly three decades of destruction, a place is emerging here that embodies both the past and the future. The challenge lies not only in physical reconstruction but also in the question: How can 1,200 apartments be built quickly and affordably without compromising on quality of life?
The master plan provides a clear, yet multifaceted, answer to this. Instead of monotonous repetition, it relies on a typology that reflects diversity through varied arrangements. Three basic building types – the L-shaped building, the atrium house, and the pointed building – form a system that is both efficient and flexible. This eliminates rigid modules and instead creates building blocks of a vibrant fabric. Their varied arrangement preserves open spaces and diverse visual connections. As a result, a potentially serial residential development becomes an urban space with its own dynamic.
This diversity is crucial when it comes to building quickly without creating monotonous structures. Standardization allows for speed and cost-effectiveness, but it is the specific combination of elements that creates a result in which people want to live. At the same time, this demonstrates that efficiency and differentiation need not be a contradiction but can function side by side.
The reconstruction of Agdam is driven by an engagement with the area’s history. The city was once an economic and cultural center of the Karabakh region, known for its wine production, its theater culture, and institutions such as the Museum of Bread. This identity is no longer visible today, yet it forms the invisible basis for all planning decisions. The new urban design does not interpret this past nostalgically but translates it into the present time.
A central element of this translation is the facades. Through them, tradition is reinterpreted. The buildings do not directly adopt traditional motifs but transform them into modern architectural elements. The striking L-shaped structures of the facades create depth, shadow, and a dynamic surface. They act as a filter between interior and exterior – functionally as sun protection, atmospherically as a regulator of light and climate.
The facades are more than just shells. They respond to climatic conditions, create microclimates, and contribute to energy efficiency. Green elements, climbing plants, and integrated planters form a kind of living curtain that changes over time. This results in an architecture that is not static but evolves, just like the city itself.
Inside as well, the project follows a logic of efficiency and community. Different circulation patterns – from central hallways to pergolas and central stairwells – enable flexible apartment layouts. At the same time, communal spaces are integrated into the buildings: terraces, common areas, and spacious entryways promote social interaction. Accordingly, housing development should not be understood merely as the provision of living space, but as the foundation for communal living.
Open spaces play a role just as important as the buildings themselves. Continuous green axes connect the individual building sites and create a coherent system of spaces for movement and recreation. Courtyards become meeting places, and rooftop terraces serve as smaller-scale retreats. This spatial continuity between interior and exterior creates a sense of openness and, at the same time, community.
Ecological aspects are also an essential component of the design. The city is conceived as a “green energy zone,” where renewable energies and sustainable systems are consequently integrated throughout. Photovoltaic systems on the roofs, rainwater harvesting, and extensive greening not only contribute to the energy supply but also improve the microclimate. Cooling is achieved not only through technical means, but through vegetation, shading, and evaporation – an approach that benefits both the environment and the economy.
The speed of construction here stems not from simplification, but from systematization. Agdam thus becomes an example of how reconstruction can succeed under constrained conditions. The planning demonstrates that it is possible to realize a large number of housing units in a short time without sacrificing architectural quality or urban identity. What is decisive here is not the individual solution, but the interplay of typology, open space, facade, and infrastructure.
Ultimately, what is being built here is not just a new city, but a new understanding of urban development: one that seamlessly combines efficiency and diversity, tradition and innovation, speed and care.