The interview opened by revisiting Syria’s experience with urban management, planning, and development from the mid-20th century onward. It traced the evolution of centralized planning under Hafez al-Assad, rooted in Eastern bloc state capitalist political economies and modernist models, through to the speculative and elite-driven privatized projects of Bashar al-Assad’s era. Across these decades, urban planning became a political instrument: decisions were monopolized by centralized institutions controlled by the presidency and security services, sidelining municipalities, professionals, and citizens. This legacy of centralization and exclusion produced inequalities and urban fragilities that persist today.

The discussion then shifted to the challenges of reconstruction. Here, reconstruction was presented not as a matter of bricks and mortar, but as a profound governance question—shaping who belongs in the city, who benefits, and how justice is embedded in recovery.  The discussion highlighted key messages that deserve serious attention:

• Reconstruction is about governance and justice, not only brick and mortar.
  Who decides zoning, services, and eligibility determines who belongs in the city. Recovery succeeds when rules are fair, rights are protected, and decisions are transparent and inclusive—measured in jobs restored and services running, not in skyline renderings of luxury apartments for the rich.

• Investment follows rules—or it fuels new displacement.
  Without predictable land, housing, and property (HLP) due-diligence and empowerment of displaced people to formalize their tenure, FDI's and capital would chase rents and speculation (the “showpiece” bias) instead of recovery. A wide range of options can be devised to provide clear titles, fair compensation, and to redirect money into housing people can actually afford.

• Back people to rebuild: demand-side support should be prioritized over mega-projects.
  Small grants/loans to households and SMEs—paired with essential services—rehouse families faster and generate larger local economic and job multipliers than supply-side, top-down schemes. Prioritize quick, decent habitation and livelihoods over capital-intensive projects with long payback horizons.

• Decentralize delivery; centralize standards.
  Municipalities and local actors are better placed to sequence utilities, schools, and clinics; the centre’s role is to set standards, provide oversight, and connect finance. This balance speeds delivery while safeguarding equity and technical quality.

• Fix property and housing rights at scale—administratively.
  Courts alone cannot process millions of complex property claims. Fast-track, mixed committees (legal, technical, social) can resolve classes of HLP problems, protect women’s shares, and offer compensation where return is impossible—reducing conflict and unlocking investment.

• Design adjustable incentives to maximize local multipliers.
  Use tiered, time-bound tax relief and concessional credit that reward social returns: deeper benefits for low-income housing, basic services, repair/retrofit, and labour-intensive local supply chains; lighter incentives for purely luxury assets. Protect the tax base, and scale bonuses only when investors prove local sourcing, training, and community benefit.

• Don’t repeat ideologically naïve planning.
  The old model imposed central blueprints without feasibility studies, impact assessment, or community dialogue—producing uniform plans, bottlenecks, and injustice. Today’s choices must be evidence-led, scenario-tested, and co-designed with affected communities, with clear assessment of economic, social, and environmental impacts.

• Rebuild with memory and participation, not erasure.
  Informal areas hold social capital and support networks; erasing them invites new grievances and destroys the social capital networks needed for poor people's survival. Co-planning with residents—providing socially acceptable layouts, improving safety standards, and reserving space for services and public life—yields stability and durable growth.

Reconstruction choices will define the contours of citizenship and belonging in Syria for decades. They must be inclusive, rights-based, and economically grounded to avoid repeating past mistakes