Time to Put Urban Planning Front and Centre

Urban planning, development and management in Bangladesh have been passing through a long-standing structural crisis. 

Even after the July uprising, when many issues emerged in discussions around rebuilding the state, urbanization has still failed to receive the attention it deserves.

This is despite the fact that urbanization is deeply connected to the country’s economy, population, environment, employment, and political stability. Nearly three-quarters of Bangladesh’s total GDP now comes from urban areas. 

Yet those very cities are overwhelmed by four major crises: disorder, fragmented planning, weak leadership, and inequality.

Political promises versus reality

Both BNP and NCP have made several urban-related commitments in their election manifestos.

Among BNP’s 31-point agenda, Point 21 focuses on decentralization and empowering local government institutions; Point 28 addresses the modernization of roads, railways and waterways and the establishment of a multi-modal transport system.

Point 29 highlights effective measures to tackle climate change impacts and natural disasters, including river management and canal excavation; and Point 31 emphasizes the formulation and implementation of modern, planned, and environmentally friendly housing and urbanization policies.

These points are directly linked to urban planning and management.

In particular, Points 21 and 31 are extremely important for the future of cities and reflect sound and necessary principles for planned urban development. The question, however, is who will implement these commitments and how.

If the same administrative structure, the same workforce, and the same centralized system remain in place, then urban planning and development will continue along the same path as before.

In that case, most of the promises made in the manifestos will remain unfulfilled.

The reality becomes clear when we look at Dhaka. Every year, around five to six hundred thousand people migrate to the capital. In effect, Dhaka absorbs the population of a medium-sized European or Australian city each year.

Yet the current urban governance system fails to ensure adequate housing, education, healthcare, transport, water supply, waste management, or public safety for this growing population.

This is not merely a problem of limited capacity; it is fundamentally a deep structural issue. Leadership in planning, implementation, and management is fragmented and poorly coordinated, pushing Dhaka and other cities into unplanned growth and persistent crises.

For this reason, what is needed first is a far-sighted and courageous political decision -- one upon which a sustainable framework for Bangladesh’s future urban planning and management can be built.

Capacity building or structural reform?

Given the problems described above, a critical question arises: can these challenges be solved simply by increasing the capacity of existing institutions? The answer is no.

The problem is not only about capacity; it is also about structural and policy failures. Addressing urban challenges therefore requires a new way of thinking and an effective, decentralized administrative framework where planning, implementation, and oversight complement one another.

The complexity of Bangladesh’s urban problems goes far beyond infrastructure. These challenges are social, environmental, and administrative at the same time.

Before formulating any policy for the planned development and management of cities -- whether in Dhaka or elsewhere -- the state must clearly answer a fundamental question: What should the structure of urban planning, development, and management be? Answering this question demands bold political decisions.

Political parties that aim to form the next government should begin discussions now on how long-term problems can be addressed through better planning, development, and management.

It must be remembered that trying to solve all problems at once usually leads to failure. Instead, focus should be placed on the most important leverage points -- areas where intervention can gradually resolve multiple issues over time.

One of the biggest crises in this context is leadership. Past experience shows that due to weak leadership across ministries and agencies, the kind of forward-looking strategies and actions required in a highly technical and strategic sector like urban planning were not taken.

As a result, planning processes remained weak; in many cases, plans existed but were not properly implemented; and due to poor coordination among numerous institutions, planned development remained extremely limited.

Learning from this experience, structural reform of urban governance must go hand in hand with leadership reform.

Competent, knowledgeable, and forward-thinking individuals must be placed in leadership roles within relevant ministries and agencies. Only then can effective policies, organized implementation, and sustainable direction be ensured.

Regardless of which party comes to power, if genuine change in urban planning, development, and management is desired, a strong, knowledge-based team must be formed even before taking office.

This team should bring together expertise and practical experience in urban planning, transport, land, climate, economics, waste management, local government, and administration.

Placing the right people in the right positions is the first condition of any meaningful structural reform.

A roadmap for leadership and institutional restructuring 

Bangladesh’s urban planning, development, and management have reached a stage where there is no alternative to effective leadership and integrated planning. 

BNP’s promise to formulate a “National Strategic/ Spatial Plan” essentially refers to a National Spatial Plan, which would determine the future distribution of land use, transport, economy, environment, and population.

The key questions are who will prepare this plan, which ministry will lead the process, and how sectoral plans and development initiatives will be coordinated with it.

In our view, the solution lies within the existing state structure. Creating new ministries or institutions is both costly and time-consuming.

In the current context, assigning leadership for urban and spatial planning to the Ministry of Planning is the most practical option. This ministry already plays a coordinating role among different ministries, making it well positioned to provide strategic leadership.

Under this leadership framework, a specialized Urban and Spatial Planning Division could be established within the Ministry of Planning.

This division would be responsible for setting overall directions for the National Strategic/Spatial Plan, urban development strategies, and spatial planning. It would bring together professional urban planners and experienced experts from various sectors.

This division would not implement projects directly; instead, it would serve as the philosophical, strategic, and coordinating centre of national urban planning.

As a result, other ministries and agencies would operate within a unified planning framework rather than making fragmented decisions.

In this context, the role of the Urban Development Directorate deserves special attention. Although it currently exists in name, it mainly focuses on plan preparation.

It would be more logical to restructure it as an Urban Planning Directorate or Department of Planning. More importantly, the institution must be rebuilt as a strong, professional, and well-resourced organization.

At present, the directorate works on planning at regional, district, and upazila levels. However, due to a lack of manpower, structure, and political priority, it has not yet emerged as a true national institution.

No government so far has taken sincere steps to develop it as the central body for national and regional urban planning. Yet with proper restructuring, it could become the core institution for all spatial planning at national, divisional and district levels.

We believe this Urban Planning Directorate should be placed under the Ministry of Planning. This would link it directly to the national development framework and establish strong technical leadership in urban and spatial planning.

National spatial/Strategic plans, regional plans, and district and upazila-level plans would then fall within a single, coherent system.

The next level in this structure is city corporations and municipalities. Based on national, regional, and district plans, they should be responsible for preparing local plans and managing development accordingly.

Being closest to people’s daily lives and urban realities, these institutions should prepare local development plans, zoning plans, and land-use plans.

They should also oversee development control, building approvals, land-use enforcement, and urban order. Local infrastructure -- such as small and medium roads, drainage, parks, community facilities, and waste management—should remain under their supervision.

In short, day-to-day urban management should rest with local governments, guided by national and regional planning frameworks.

On the other hand, development authorities should function primarily as delivery authorities for large-scale projects.

They would implement major housing schemes, new town developments, mega infrastructure projects, and urban renewal initiatives in line with national and local plans. However, plan preparation and local control should not fall under their mandate.

Recently, the interim government issued the “Spatial Planning Ordinance 2025” under the Ministry of Housing and Public Works. This initiative should be welcomed, as it brings a highly important issue into national policy discussion.

Although the need for spatial planning at the national level has long been recognized, it had not previously been placed within a coherent legal framework.

However, in our view, if a strategic and cross-sectoral subject such as spatial planning were placed under the Ministry of Planning, it would be possible to establish stronger policy leadership for urban and regional development.

Spatial planning is not limited to housing or physical infrastructure alone; it is an integrated framework that brings together land management, transport, environment, economic development, and urban-rural linkages.

At the same time, media reports indicate that the Local Government Division is considering the establishment of a Spatial Planning Wing under LGRDC Ministry and a Spatial Planning Directorate. This may also be seen as a positive initiative.

However, one issue requires careful consideration: the proposed local government structure should not overlap with the urban and spatial planning framework under the Ministry of Housing and Public Works but should instead play a complementary role.

In our view, greater clarity is needed regarding both the name and the function of this structure under the Local Government Division.

Rather than Spatial Planning Wing, it would be more appropriate to call it a Local Planning Wing, and the proposed directorate a Local Planning Directorate. The primary role of this body should be to provide municipalities with technical, institutional, and human resource support for local-level planning.

City corporations, in particular, should be strengthened so that they are able to prepare, implement, and regulate their own local plans effectively.

Under this overall framework, the Ministry of Planning would provide leadership at the national level, with the Urban Planning Directorate preparing national and regional plans.

The Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives would lead local planning, implementation, and capacity building for municipalities, supported by a Local Planning Directorate.

City corporations would manage local planning, development, and development control within their jurisdictions. Development authorities would remain limited to implementing large and nationally significant projects.

However, local-level planning and development must follow the planning directions set by the Ministry of Planning and higher-level plans prepared Urban Planning Directorate.

Through such a clear division of responsibilities, we believe an effective, integrated, and sustainable urban governance framework can be established.

Bangladesh’s urban crisis is not merely about roads, buildings, or mega projects; it is fundamentally a crisis of leadership, coordination, and institutional structure.

With the right leadership and a clear framework, discipline and balance can return to urban planning, development, and management.

Political effort and transitional leadership for structural reform 

One reality must be acknowledged in implementing the proposed framework: Bangladesh’s current urban planning, development, and management systems are so fragmented, multi- layered, and institutionally weak that administrative restructuring alone will not be sufficient at the moment. 

Effective implementation will require direct oversight and active involvement from the highest level of political leadership.

In this context, a high-powered National Urban Planning and Development Taskforce could be formed under the leadership of the Prime Minister immediately after the formation of a new government.

This would be a temporary but critically important leadership mechanism, tasked with fast decision-making, inter-institutional coordination, and paving the way for structural reform in urban planning and management.

Policy formulation, institutional restructuring, and new divisions of responsibility naturally take time. During this transitional period, the taskforce would guide and coordinate reforms across the Ministries of Planning, Local Government, and Housing and Public Works.

Once institutions gain the required capacity and the new framework becomes fully functional, the need for the taskforce would gradually come to an end. Bangladesh’s unplanned urbanization cannot be solved by a single ministry or a single project.

It is a combined crisis of leadership, coordination, and institutional capacity.

Overcoming this situation requires political courage, a clear policy framework, capable leadership, and a strong planning system to guide future urbanization.

If BNP or any other political party comes to power with a genuine intention to reform urban governance and ensure planned urbanization, the first two to three years will be decisive.

By building the right team, restructuring institutions, ensuring leadership clarity, and establishing the foundations of integrated planning, Bangladesh’s urbanization can begin a new and sustainable journey.

Otherwise, no matter how attractive the promises may sound, their chances of being realized will remain extremely limited.

The authors are Australia-based urban planners and members of the Bangladesh Institute of Planners.