Sess. 2. 1. – Gert Tinggaard Svendsen
Professor, Political Science, Aarhus University, Danemark
Focus: Trust as social capital and the invisible foundation of healthy societies.
Main research areas are trust, social capital, climate policy, the welfare state, lobbying, and collective action problems. Also collaborate with, among others, Professor Robert D. Putnam from Harvard University on a project about the historical roots of trust in Denmark.
Thinggaard explored Denmark’s exceptional culture of trust as both a social and economic asset.
He illustrated how cooperation rooted in unwritten agreements—a word, a handshake—creates efficiency and well-being. Through the metaphor of trade and everyday exchanges, he showed how trust transforms competition into collaboration. Each positive encounter adds to an “invisible backpack” of trust, forming the fabric of civic life.
Urban environments that promote regular, informal meetings strengthen this social glue. When people meet, reputations form, and social accountability replaces formal control. Architecture and planning, he argued, must therefore enable proximity and interaction. Spaces like folk high schools, sports halls, and local markets train people in mutual responsibility.
Trust, in this view, is not intangible—it’s a form of infrastructure sustaining both health and democracy.
Sess. 2. 2. – Husam AlWaer – Chair of Urban Design, University of Dundee, United Kingdom
Focus: The “soft neighbourhood” and the art of gentle density.
Husam is an award-winning author with published work on a wide range of subjects from architecture, urbanism, sustainability and healthy neighbourhoods to the specifics of placemaking facilitation and performance evaluation.
AlWaer presented his research on the 20-minute neighbourhood and “soft urbanism” as a framework for social and ecological balance.
He described how compact, mixed-use environments support health, equity, and climate adaptation.
The concept of “gentle density” emerged as an alternative to high-rise urbanism—creating human-scale spaces that enable connection without overcrowding.
Neighbourhoods, he argued, are not fixed territories but states of mind shaped by culture and interaction. Urban policy must therefore address causes, not just symptoms, of poor health—beginning with the physical and social structure of the city.
From Copenhagen’s cycling culture to Barcelona’s superblocks, he outlined how convenience and proximity redefine sustainable living.
Density, he noted, is not a constraint but an outcome of good design—one that fosters inclusion, trust, and active mobility.
Soft neighbourhoods, like any cultural change, take 10–40 years to mature; they require persistence and patience.
The ultimate goal is a city that feels equitable, diverse, and regenerative—a place that nurtures both body and mind.
Sess. 2. 3. – Etienne Lhomet – Director Des Villes et Des Hommes,
Vice President of INTA – France
Focus: Mobility as medicine and the healing of cities.
Etienne Lhomet is a French engineer highly experienced in the development and management of major public transport networks project. He has acquired a twenty-five years’ experience in transport planning and in public transport projects management in Europe and abroad.
Étienne Lhomet reframed mobility planning through the lens of health, empathy, and cultural transformation.
He compared cities to living organisms—systems with metabolisms, pathologies, and the potential to heal.
True progress, he argued, begins when transport engineering is replaced by social and environmental care.
Drawing on examples from Bordeaux, Lyon, and Medellín, he showed how mobility can catalyse dignity, safety, and inclusion.
Medellín’s “metro culture,” which combined cable cars with libraries and women’s empowerment, became a model of trust-based urban renewal.
He stressed that beauty and quality inspire respect—when cities are designed with generosity, people treat them with care.
Culture, not technology, is the deepest driver of healthy transformation.
Every successful project balances empathy with strength—a mix of oxytocin and courage. In this view, the city healer is the one who restores both physical and emotional balance between humans and their environment.
Sess. 2. 4. – Laura Kairiene – Chief Architect of Vilnius, Lithuania
Focus: Healing the post-Soviet city through trust, participation, and cultural continuity.
Laura is a city-shaper with a blueprint for balance. As Chief Architect, she leads with a vision that weaves together data, design, and community to build cities that truly work— for people and the planet. From championing polycentric development to guiding citizen engagement and reinvestment strategies.
Laura Kairiene portrayed Vilnius as a patient recovering from a long history of top-down planning.
The city’s transformation, she said, depends on rebuilding trust after decades of imposed decisions and psychological distance.
Her vision of a “healthy city” blends densification, inclusion, and ecological stewardship rooted in Lithuanian identity.
Vilnius today is a multicultural, forest-filled capital that balances innovation with authenticity.
Through participatory planning and citizen assemblies, the municipality is learning to plan with people rather than for them.
She highlighted the need to preserve nature—60 % of Vilnius is green—while managing growth through polycentric development.
Projects turning prisons into creative hubs and monuments into playgrounds illustrate healing through reuse.
Kairiene framed urban planning as collective therapy: confronting wounds, reclaiming spaces, and fostering belonging.
Sess. 2. PANEL DISCUSSION – Can cities create mental well-being – and if so, how?
Modérateur : Mark Isitt + All speakers + open mic + John Pløger, Professor in Urban Sociology, Oslo.
The panel explored how cities can foster trust, adaptability, and social cohesion, emphasizing that real transformation goes beyond physical planning to include cultural and mindset shifts.
Speakers discussed the importance of short distances in cities to encourage civic engagement and build social capital. Examples from Vilnius highlighted the challenges of regenerating Soviet-era housing and the resistance to change, but also showed that attitudes can shift over time.
The debate touched on the balance between top-down and bottom-up approaches, the need for both expertise and public participation, and the role of atmosphere in urban spaces.
Audience questions raised issues such as density, quality of life, safety in green spaces, and the importance of tailoring solutions to local contexts.
The session concluded by stressing that building trust and achieving meaningful change requires time, communication, and a mix of planning strategies.