Why industrial parks are risky and dangerous in times of war

Industrial parks are not for us yet.

I came to the meeting. The company's office is located on the territory of a huge Soviet factory that has long been out of business. I haven't been here for a long time.

It's not a territory, it's a city within a city. Dozens of tenants. Workshops. Production facilities. Warehouses. Offices. Shops. All on the same territory. You know some of your neighbors – most of them don't.

There is no living place here – every other building has either burned down or been bombed. There are almost no intact windows or surviving buildings on the territory.

This is the case when the war calls into question the idea of creating and operating industrial parks where diverse businesses coexist on the same territory.

What seemed like a good idea before the war now looks like a huge risk for everyone.

What is being actively implemented all over the world can become a collective disaster in times of war.

In addition. Parks share common networks: electricity, water, communications, sewage, security. If one node is damaged, all of them stop. Unfortunately.

Ukraine's experience proves the need for diversification and geographical dispersion of both industrial and warehouse sites.

When 5-7-10 or more manufacturers operate on the same territory or under the same roof, in the event of an accidental or targeted hit on one, all are equally at risk of being destroyed.

For a country with a high risk of war, industrial park projects can be considered too risky.

Original