Review 07 Specimen Chapter

8/12/2019 Review 07 Specimen Chapter

1/22

20 ISOCARP | REVIEW 07

Making IndianCities Liveable:the Challengesof Indias UrbanTransformationShipra Narang Suri

Figure 1: Typical Indian urban scene, with mixed uses and mixed modes oftransport Lal Chowk in Srinagar. Photograph Harish Narang

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


2/22

21ISOCARP | REVIEW 07

For example, the proposals put forth by arecently constituted High-Powered ExpertCommittee for Estimating the InvestmentRequirements for Urban Infrastructure

Services (HPEC) are likely to create 87 citieswith population of 1 million and aboveby 2030 (HPEC 2011).

These outcomes of Indias urban transfor-mation pose enormous challenges for thecountrys planners and policymakers. Theformal planning system has seen little changesince independence, and most towns andcities rely on in exible master plans whichare more often than not outdated by the time

they are completed. Rigid development controlnorms which are outed at every step, anda weak governance system which can nei-ther guide nor enforce, completes the sorrypicture. Recent policy innovations such as theNational Urban Renewal Mission launched in2005 have triggered some changes, but havesidestepped the existing planning processes,which seem too complicated to change. Otherrecent events, including increasingly frequentviolent protests on issues such as rural land

acquisition for urbanisation and industrialisa-tion, and the widespread political posturingon the issue, seem once again to pitch urbancentres versus rural areas, or India versusBharat, as the country is commonly knownin Hindi. Many thinkers and policymakersunderstand that this is a false dichotomy, butthe latter in particular are unable to take anystand which apparently favours urban areas,urban residents, or even the urban poor, overtheir rural counterparts.

Given this scenario, many of Indias cities havetaken it upon themselves to introduce innova-tive measures in urban planning, manage-ment and governance, demonstrating vision,creativity, and a departure from business asusual. Improvements in public transport arebecoming increasingly common and charac-terised by innovative planning and the use ofmodern technology Delhi, for instance, has

Setting the Context:Indias UrbanTransformationIndias urbanisation is a paradox of sorts. Thecountrys urban population is undoubtedly vastat 377 million (2011 Census). In internationalterms, however, Indias urban growth canhardly be described as rapid. Despite the factthat the fastest urbanization rates are beingwitnessed in the developing world, Indiasurban population increased from 17.3 per cent

in 1971 to just 23.3 per cent in 1981, and 27.78per cent in 2001. The 2011 Census gures re -veal that just over 31 per cent of the countryspopulation is presently living in urban areas,lower than, for example, China, Indonesia,Mexico or Brazil (HPEC 2011). But there areover 80 million people living below the povertyline in Indias urban centres; a quarter of thetotal urban population lives in slums. Informalsettlements, informal livelihoods, homeless-ness, insecurity, various types of pollution and

declining green areas are the bane of most In-dian cities. Combined with emerging concernsabout climate change and the regular occur-rence of natural disasters, Indian towns andcities seem to sitting on a ticking time bomb.

The other characteristic of Indias urbanisationis that it is top-heavy, which means that thelarger cities (metropolises, which have overa million residents, and Class I cities, whichhave 100,000+ residents) have witnessedmuch more rapid growth than smaller towns.In 2001, nearly 70 per cent of the countrysurban population resided in the 393 Class Icities. The unequal spatial distribution of ur-ban populations across the country has beena cause for concern for the policymakers atthe highest level in successive ve-year plans(Kundu 2011). At the same time, urbanisationstrategies currently being implemented orproposed seem to advance the same trend.

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


3/22


pioneered the use of Compressed NaturalGas, a low-polluting fuel, for all modes of pub-lic transport, while Ahmedabad has launchedan extremely successful Bus Rapid Transit

system. Disaster risk management plansare being developed, institutionalised andimplemented, as has been done by Mumbai, toprotect cities and their residents from naturaland man-made disasters. Renewal and revi-talisation of older areas within cities is alsobeing promoted, by cities such as Ahmedabad,Jaipur, Pondicherry and Varanasi. Urban in-frastructure, water and sanitation systems arebeing revamped in fact this is the overarch-ing focus of recent policy reforms; safety and

security in public spaces is being enhancedthrough improved infrastructure and moreresponsive policing; and communities arebeing empowered through skill development,participation and partnerships in a number ofcities across the country.

This article attempts to build a broad pictureof Indias urban transformation and the majorchallenges of liveability faced in Indian cit-ies, based on a conception of liveability that

includes notions of inclusion (implying notonly social integration and cohesion, but alsoenabling the widest range of stakeholders tomake the best of the opportunities a city of-fers, as well as participate actively in decision-making), resilience (referring to adaptability,

exibility and balance; the ability of a city toinvent or re-invent itself in response toshocks and stresses, to harmoniously accom-modate old and new values, and to adapt thefunctions and requirements of the city), andauthenticity (which involves maintaining thelocal character of the city, the local heritage,culture and environment, while evolving andaccommodating social, economic and techno-logical changes). 1 As Indian towns and citieshave expanded, they have become less inclu-sive for the poor, for women, and for othersocially disadvantaged groups. In addition, theimperatives of development and modernisa-tion are taking a toll on the historic character

of many cities. They are also struggling to be-come more resilient in coping with natural andman-made disasters, crime and insecurity,and con ict among various societal groups.

Using a wide range of illustrations and exam-ples, this paper argues that to build liveablecities in India, a fundamental shift in the ap-proach to urban planning and development isrequired, and concludes with some ideas thatmight contribute towards such a change.

The Changing (?)Mechanics of Planning

Urban planning and local governancein Indian cities

Urban planning in India has traditionally takenthe form of master plans, usually developedand implemented by specially constituteddevelopment authorities which are outside

the purview of the local administration andhence not directly accountable to the localpopulation (unlike local governments whichhave an elected council that is accountable tothe citizens). The lack of coordination betweenurban planning and local governance wassought to be corrected through the adoption ofthe 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA)in 1992, which proposed that Urban LocalBodies (ULBs) be established and strength-ened in order to improve the quality of theurban environment, provide services in a moreresponsive and effective manner, and enhanceparticipation of local stakeholders in decision-making processes. The amendment has beendescribed as

the first serious attempt to ensure stabili-zation of democratic municipal governmentthrough constitutional provisions. (Savageand Dasgupta 2006: 43)

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


4/22


While the Act directly addressed the issue ofplanning (the rst of the functions assignedto ULBs under the Twelfth Schedule whichis part of the Amendment Act), this aspect

has remained marginal to the developmentof Indias towns, cities, districts and regions.According to a report prepared by the NationalInstitute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) in 2005 as-sessing the implementation of the 74th CAAin 27 states and one Union Territory, DistrictPlanning Committees (DPCs) and MetropolitanPlanning Committees (MPCs), which accord-ing to the Act should be established by eachMunicipal Authority, are yet to be establishedin most states. 2

The ineffectiveness of planning has becomeendemic across Indian cities. Ansari (2004)points out some key drawbacks of the MasterPlan, including the limited attention paid tosocial and economic development aspects,

nancial resource mobilisation for the imple -mentation of the plan, as well as the long timeneeded for plan preparation and the limitedstakeholder involvement. Economic planningor local economic development strategies

are rarely incorporated into the spatial plan-ning exercise, with the result that the plansare unrealistic and impossible to implement(Sridharan 2008).

What emerges [] is largely a bundleof half-baked ideas incorporated into a proposed land use plan that planners insistshould be implemented in its entirety, at allcosts. (Ansari 2004: 15)

Furthermore, the implementation of urbanplans in Indian cities is hampered by the factthat water and sewerage systems, power andtelecommunication services, roads and publictransport, housing and slums, are controlledby other parastatal bodies or line departmentsof central and state governments. Local gov-ernments are responsible only for solid wastemanagement, maintenance of public spaces,and some basic repair and maintenance of

other services such as roads, street lightingand drainage systems.

The launch of the Jawaharlal Nehru National

Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) towardsthe end of 2005 has signi cantly in uencedboth the local governance and urban plan-ning systems in Indias large cities. Covering63 cities across the country, the JNNURMsoverarching goal is to encourage reforms andfast track planned development of the identi-

ed cities, with a focus on improving ef ciencyin the delivery of urban infrastructure andservices. Community participation and build-ing accountability of local authorities towards

citizens are the other objectives of the Mission(Government of India 2005b). 3

One of the prerequisites for any city to accessfunds under the JNNURM is the preparationof a City Development Plan (CDP). To supportcities in this process, the JNNURM secretariathas produced a Toolkit containing guidelinesfor CDP preparation. The Toolkit suggeststhat a multi-stage process be adopted for thepreparation of a CDP, including an assess-

ment of the current situation, developmentof a vision for the future in consultation withstakeholders, strategy formulation and the de-velopment of a City Investment Plan (Govern-ment of India 2005a).

While this is indeed a welcome step forward,and has encouraged the cities included to for-mulate CDPs, one is unable to decipher howdifferent these plans are, or will be, from old-fashioned master plans (other than includingan Investment Plan). It is also unclear whetherCDPs will replace master plans as the keystatutory document for planning, or are to bedeveloped in addition to master plans. It is toosoon, of course, to comment on the extent towhich each CDP has been implemented, andits long-term impact on the city concerned.The JNNURM demands that over the dura-tion of the Mission urban planning becomea designated function of elected local bod-

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


5/22


ies. However, without signi cant institutionalreforms to streamline and reorganise theresponsibilities of local bodies and variousparastatal (unelected/ technical) organisa-

tions, the development and implementation ofthe CDPs prepared for cities in the next phaseof JNNURM (see below) could well remain asfragmented as it has been in the past.

A revised version of the JNNURM is now in thepipeline. Titled unimaginatively as the NewImproved JNNURM (NIJNNURM), the newscheme will target all cities and towns, smallor big, and will focus on capacity creationwithin the local governments. Funding will be

linked to a city-speci c reform agenda, ratherthan imposing one-size- ts-all solutions onlarge, medium and smaller urban centres.Regarding the governance of planning, it isproposed to strengthen Metropolitan andDistrict Planning Committees, with Urban De-velopment Authorities and Uni ed Metropoli -tan Transport Authorities as their technicalarms. City planning would be made a functionof elected local governments rather than Ur-ban Development Authorities (HPEC 2011). It

remains to be seen if this version of the UrbanRenewal Mission would be any more effectiveas compared to the previous one, especiallyvis--vis planning.

Addressing the complex andcontentious issue of urban land

Of course, urban planning reforms cannot becomplete without addressing the issue of land.Urban land has always been, and continues tobe, a contentious subject in most Indian cities.Like urban development and local governance,land is also a state subject under the Indianfederal system. The central government pro-vides policy advice and guidance in this area,but it is up to the state governments to adoptany central policies or directives (Banerjee2002). One of the major legal instrumentswhich has signi cantly impacted (in fact, hin -

dered) the development of urban land in thecountry has been the Urban Land Ceiling andRegulation Act (ULCRA) of 1976, which wasapplied in cities with populations of 200,000

or more in the year 1971. The key objectives ofthis Act were to

curb the activities of private land develop-ers, to check undesirable speculation, tooperate a land bank to keep land priceswithin reasonable limits and to ensure plandevelopment with special reference to theneeds of the poorer segment of the popula-tion. (Sivam 2002: 529)

Although these goals were undoubtedly noble,the Act led to the freezing of large tracts ofland in the big cities, ostensibly for planneddevelopment. The slow pace of such develop-ment, in turn, led to a scarcity of developedland and skyrocketing prices. Land acquisitionalso became more and more expensive fordevelopment authorities, as well as being acumbersome process fraught with litigation,which in turn fed the cycle of low supply andhigh demand (Gnaneshwar 1995; Sivam 2002).

Thus, in effect, the Act shut out the urban poorfrom the housing market in most large cities,Delhi being a prime example. In 1998, the cen-tral Act was nally repealed. Most states havealso repealed the corresponding state acts.Some states have also made other attempts toreduce barriers to private supply of land, suchas reforming Rent Control Acts.

In recent years, two other initiatives have beentried to overcome the existing constraints.These are: (i) township development and (ii)land pooling and readjustment. The IntegratedTownship Policy, adopted by certain states, isan attempt to mobilize the private sector forthe supply of land for urban housing, infra-structure, and other public purposes. Underthis mechanism, a developer assembles landby paying private landowners the prevailingmarket price, without the deployment of LandAcquisition Act (LAA) provisions to acquire

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


6/22


land. This is unusual in India, where land ishistorically seen as a public good, and itsacquisition a state function. The role of thepublic sector in this process is restricted to

that of a facilitator and a regulator of townplanning, environmental, and social welfarenorms (Joshi 2009).

Another effective approach being deployedfor the delivery of serviced land for urbanexpansion in the periphery of cities, mainly inthe western Indian state of Gujarat, is knownas the Development PlanTown PlanningScheme mechanism. Under the Gujarat TownPlanning and Urban Development Act (GT-

PUDA) of 1976, a two-stage process is outlinedfor urban development. The rst step is thepreparation of a statutory Development Plan(DP) for the town or city as a whole, which alsodemarcates the area of the rural hinterlandwhere the city is expected to expand. In thesecond stage, the expansion area is dividedinto a number of smaller areas, usually

between 1 and 2 sq km each, and for eachof these, a Town Planning Scheme (TPS) isprepared. This is a combined land reconstitu-tion, infrastructure development, and nanc -

ing proposal (see Figure 2). Although this isa tedious process, it has been, and continuesto be an effective instrument for developmentplanning, infrastructure development,

nancing and implementation (Ballaney andPatel 2009).

While these measures are innovative and arebeing usefully deployed in a number of cities,in the long term, the supply of urban land canonly be freed by removing constraints such as

rent control, high stamp duty and developmentcharges, restriction on sale or conversion ofagricultural land, and the weak land title/record and protection system (IDFC 2009).

Figure 2: Before and after maps of Vinzol-2 Town Planning Scheme in the south of Ahmedabad, western India.Courtesy EPC Development Planning and Management (EPCDPM), Ahmedabad

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


7/22


Responding to theChallenges ofLiveabilityThis paper does not attempt to provide a com-prehensive overview of every single challengeor concern faced by Indian cities today. Rather,it aims to focus on some critical areas whichhave a close connection with the concepts ofinclusion, resilience and authenticity, includ-ing some which have consistently been ofconcern to policymakers and citizens alike

(e.g. urban housing, services and transport),as well as issues which have recently emerged

(or, re-emerged) and captured the imagina-tion of urban stakeholders (e.g. revitalisationof historic districts within cities, security andsocial inclusion). For each of these, the major

challenges are enunciated rst, followed bya few examples of innovative interventionswhich aim to address these.

Urban housing, infrastructure andservice delivery

The challenges of urban housing, especiallyfor low-income populations, infrastructureprovision, and the delivery of a variety of urban

services including (among others) water, sani-tation, education and health, are long-stand-

Figure 3: Pavement-dwellers in the city of Delhi. Photograph Maud Hainry, courtesy UNESCO New Delhi

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


8/22


ing concerns for Indian policymakers. Ac-cording to the latest National Sample Surveyreports, there are over 80 million poor peopleliving in the cities and towns of India. While

this gure is contentious and debated, at thesame time it is widely accepted that shelterpoverty is much larger than income poverty inurban areas. This is mainly a result of heavilydistorted land markets and an exclusionaryregulatory system that fails to accommodatethe needs of the poor, or adequately addressthe challenges of slums, informal settlementsand pavement dwellings. An adequate, af-fordable formal housing supply for the urbanpoor doesnt seem to be a priority area for

policy-makers, even though land values areescalating sharply and the market is clearly

excluding the poor. A resettlement policy isurgently required which lays down guidelinesto minimize displacements and ensure therehabilitation of people affected by projects,

based on human rights to adequate shelter. Asslums are a state subject according to the In-dian constitution, state slum laws also need tobe reviewed across the country (Risbud 2009).

In terms of services, too, Indian cities lagbehind on almost all counts. It is estimatedthat water supply is available for an averageof 2.9 hours per day, across all Indian citiesand towns; less than 20 per cent of wastewater is treated; and solid waste management

is grossly inadequate. National benchmarkshave recently been developed for the four key

Figure 4: Typical scene in the older part of an Indian city, with overcrowding, dilapidated buildings and crumblinginfrastructure. Photograph Marina Faetanini, courtesy UNESCO New Delhi

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


9/22


service sectors, viz., water supply, sewerage,storm water drainage and solid waste man-agement (Vaidya 2009).

Urban transport, however, is one area whichis witnessing quite some innovation. Mobilityis a serious challenge in most Indian citiesand towns, mainly due to inadequate transportinfrastructure, an unbalanced modal splitheavily favouring private transport, and littleintegration between land use and trans-port planning. However, public transport isincreasingly coming into focus, with a rangeof options being tried, from improved andenvironment-friendly bus services, introduc-

tion of bus rapid transit, and the developmentof metro rail systems. Integration of transportand land use planning is a key suggestion ofthe National Urban Transport Policy adoptedin 2006, and Transit-Oriented Development isslowly becoming a strategic focus in severalkey cities, such as Delhi. The capital has seenthe development of the most extensive metro-rail network in the country over the pastdecade, which now ferries upto 1.7 millioncommuters every day on seven lines. In addi-

tion, all public service vehicles in the NationalCapital Territory run on Compressed NaturalGas (CNG), a much cleaner fuel than diesel.This policy, when introduced in 2001-02 under

directives of the Supreme Court of India, wasextremely unpopular, and riddled with severalglitches, the most important one being limitedavailability of CNG and the long queues thatsnaked for several kilometers outside thehandful of stations which supplied the fuel.These, however, have now been addressedeffectively, and the capital is relatively free ofdiesel smoke. Between 2000 and 2008 carbonemissions had plummeted by 72% while SO2emissions decreased by 57%, thanks to 3,500

CNG buses, 12,000 taxis, 65,000 auto rick-shaws and 5,000 mini buses running on CNG(Hohne, Burck et al. 2009).

The experience of the Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) corridor, on the other hand, was not aspositive in Delhi, and the corridor was neverextended beyond roads covered in the rstphase. Delhi, and other Indian cities, would dowell to learn from Ahmedabad in this respect(see Box 1, Figure 6).

Figure 5: Buses and auto-rickshaws plying on CNG in Delhi. Photograph Harish Narang

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


10/22


Figure 6: Aerial view of the Janmarg BRTS corridor, Ahmedabad. Photograph CEPT University, Ahmedabad

Shipra Narang Suri

Box 1: The Ahmedabad Bus Rapid Transit System demonstratinginnovation in policy, technology and implementation

The Janmarg BRTS, as the BRTS system in Ahmedabad is known, is a much-lauded initia-tive for many reasons. Developed under the broader vision of Accessible Ahmedabad,which aimed to redesign the city structure and transport systems towards greater acces-sibility, ef cient mobility and a lower carbon future, the Janmarg BRTS was inauguratedin 2009. The project itself aimed to provide high quality, reliable public transport servicescomparable to a much-more expensive metro system, which would attract users from allclasses of society. Extensive technological applications such as Automatic Vehicle Track-ing and passenger information systems, the use of smart cards, surveillance and securitysystems, and Area Traf c Control Systems at junctions ensured superior service and helpedbuild a brand identity for the Janmarg system. Dedicated right-of-way for the buses andmedian bus stations with barrier-free access and at-level boarding enhance accessibil-ity and save time. Innovative public-private partnership arrangements have been used toprovide footbridges, landscaping and maintenance of the corridor, as well as operationand maintenance of a pay and park system. The Janmarg BRTS today carries an averageof 125,000 passengers per day using 70 buses. Financed initially through a combinationof JNNURM (central government) funds (35%), Gujarat state contribution (15%) and localgovernment contribution (50%), Ahmedabad Janmarg Limited, the company incorporated tomanage the system, today generates a daily revenue of about Rs. 0.75 million and meets allits operating costs, including bus cost.

Source: www.ahmedabadbrts.com, CEPT University documentation

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


11/22


Urban renewal and revitalisation ofhistoric areas

Urbanisation, along with the pressure it cre-

ates on urban land and services, also has asigni cant bearing on the older/historic areaswithin cities, often leading to deteriorationand decay, as well as the loss of harmony anda sense of place. Unfortunately, this dimen-sion of liveability is frequently neglected bypolicy-makers. This is, of course, not unusualas traditionally, across the developing world,rehabilitation and conservation of historic andinner-city districts receives little attentionin urban development policy, with the focus

mainly on monuments, or remains of monu-ments, or at the most, sites or complexescontaining a number of monuments or other

Figure 7: Inner-city housing above the spice market in Shahjahanabad, DelhiPhotograph Marina Faetanini, courtesy UNESCO New Delhi

Shipra Narang Suri

historic structures (Steinberg 1996). The em-phasis on modernisation including modernhousing, transport and infrastructure meansthat older city areas (which present a range

of complex problems and cannot be modern-ised easily) are ignored, therefore continueto decline, and are eventually torn down. InIndia, too, the urbanization of poverty and poorplanning on the one hand, and the desire tomodernise and develop, on the other, havecombined to play a rather destructive role vis--vis urban heritage (Menon 2005).

According to a recent UNESCO publication,historic areas in India are faced with multi-

ple challenges, including those relating topoverty, migration and exclusion; inadequatehousing, poor infrastructure and a deteriorat-

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


12/22


ing living environment; land tenure, ownershipand tenancy; weak governance and con ict -ing interests; and nally, lack of political willto address these complex issues (UNESCO2010). As historic areas provide economic andresidential opportunities to a large numberand wide range of residents and migrants,they also become melting pots for very diversegroups of people. At the same time, they canbecome ghettoes for the urban poor and thoseworking in the informal sector. With deterio-rating urban services, overcrowded housingconditions and lack of interest on the part ofmany owners in maintaining their properties,historic districts in Indian cities increasinglyresemble urban slums. Con icting interests ofthe poor and the middle-classes, who prefera sanitised, restrictive approach to urbanconservation, and the lack of political will toresolve these, mean that historic districtscontinue to suffer from neglect and decay. The

fragmented governance framework vis--viscities has also played a part in the neglectof urban heritage. While the ArchaeologicalSurvey of India focused its attention predomi-nantly on individual or groups of monuments,the Town Planning Acts and the work ofdevelopment authorities only emphasised newdevelopment (and to a lesser degree, someurban renewal). Historic districts or areaswithin cities, thus, fell between the institution-al cracks. According to Ravindran (2005)

[There are] no regulations to guide their[old cities] development, no base maps to propose improvements, and no intellectualspace devoted to planning them.(Ravindran 2005: 11)

Clearly, the development and renewal ofhistoric districts in cities, with their complexand layered built form, wide-ranging eco-

Figure 8: Evening prayer (Aarti) on the banks of the Ganges river in the holy city of Varanasi. A popularreligio-cultural ritual witnessed by thousands of residents and visitors. Photograph Harish Narang

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


13/22


nomic activities and multiple uses, need to beaddressed as a whole, rather than as a sumof many parts. An important step was takenin 2004 in the form of the INTACH Charter,

which proposed a concept of Heritage Zones,described as sensitive development areas,which are a part of larger urban agglomerationpossessing signi cant evidence of heritage(Menon 2005). The Heritage Zone concept em-phasises that the conservation of architecturalheritage and sites must be undertaken in a ho-listic manner, and should go hand in hand withthe imperatives of routine development proc-ess. An example of the application of the herit-age zone concept can be found in the newly

prepared City Development Plan for the city ofUjjain, which divides the city into 18 kshetras (areas or zones), each of which is unique and

treated differently in the overall plan. Detailedmaster plans are being developed for each ofthese kshetras (UNESCO 2010).

Some of these issues of liveability faced byhistoric areas in Indian cities are being ad-dressed within the broader City DevelopmentPlans (CDPs) prepared under the aegis ofJNNURM. Guidelines issued by the Missionemphasise that heritage conservation mustbe integrated with the overall plan for the city- an important step forward from the olderapproach of focusing on the conservation ofmonuments and structures, often virtually inisolation from their surrounding environment

(Government of India 2006). However, whilethese guidelines are undoubtedly progressive,they still dont go far enough in terms of being

Shipra Narang Suri

Figure 9: A view of the restored French quarter in Pondicherry, southern India.Photograph INTACH Pondicherry Chapter

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


14/22


Shipra Narang Suri

Box 2: Revitalisation of the historic urban core in Ahmedabad

The municipal corporation of Ahmedabad in western India has recently been awarded thetop prize for being the best-managed urban local body among the 63 local governmentsparticipating in the JNNURM programme. In the news lately for its well-designed andpopular Bus Rapid Transit system described earlier, the city has also been leading the wayin the conservation of the walled city area and the traditional neighbourhoods therein (pols)since 1996. Undertaken in a participatory and holistic manner, this exercise has focusedon creating awareness among different sections of society, and adopting a fresh approach,towards urban conservation and revitalisation. The interventions are not just about thephysical conservation of heritage monuments, but also aim to protect intangible heritageas well as improve living conditions in the pols. Further, it aims to revive local govern-ance in the walled city through extensive and continuous public participation, particularly

recognizing the panch, key community leaders involved in information dissemination, asformal representatives of the community. Cultural revival is also a key focus area. One ofthe most successful elements of the project, which has also been replicated in other citiessubsequently, is the Heritage Walk. The Heritage Walk passes through a number of well-preserved old neighbourhoods and raises awareness about their architectural, culturaland socio-economic signi cance. It not only targets tourists but also inhabitants of the city,aiming to build a sense of urban identity and belonging.The urban revitalisation efforts are currently led by the Ahmedabad Heritage Centre,established in 2001 by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) in collaboration withthe French Government. The Centre was preceded by a Heritage Conservation Cell set upwithin the AMC in July 1996, to oversee and coordinate all heritage conservation efforts, inpartnership with a number of civil society organisations. The Cell introduced a bye-law inthe General Development Control Regulations which prohibited any heritage property frombeing pulled down without its prior permission. Other measures adopted include the reduc-tion in property tax on traditional buildings, and the reduction of the Floor Space Index (FSI)from 3 to 1.8. In addition, the municipal budget sanctions approximately Rs 5 million (US$100,000) every year to sustain conservation activities in the area. Since waste managementis integral to the process of revitalisation of the walled city, the Heritage Centre has alsoinitiated a garbage collection and disposal programme for the same.

Source: AHC 2008; Nayak and Iyer 2008

people-centric. The emphasis is far moreon what heritage can do for the city in termsof revenue raising and increasing tourismin ows, rather than what it does to promote

social cohesion and inclusion, sustain liveli-hoods, and serve as an important integrativesymbol of the city (among others). There islittle space devoted to the concept of urbanrevitalisation, and even less to principles ofsustainable development or social inclusion,

which must form the basis of any revitalizationeffort.

At the same time, innovative urban renewal

and revitalization initiatives are by no meansentirely at the mercy of national legislationor policy. Ahmedabad, in the western Indianstate of Gujarat, and Pondicherry, a centrallygoverned territory in the south, are cases inpoint (See Box 2).

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


15/22


Shipra Narang Suri

Urban security and inclusion

Despite all its positive impact, urbanisationoften brings in its wake many kinds of security

challenges. In India, like many other coun-tries, the most obvious one is the increasingvulnerability of urban areas to natural andman-made disasters both climate- andnon-climate related. Flash oods (e.g. seen inMumbai in the year 2005), earthquakes (mostrecently in Kashmir (2005), Andaman Islands(2004) and Gujarat (2001), countless urban

res and other such disasters regularly affectpoorly planned settlements and buildingswhich usually disregard the most basic build-

ing bye-laws and safety standards. The resultis loss of life as well as livelihoods, mainlyfor the poor who live on precarious sites (e.g.along railway tracks, close to land- ll sites, oron low-lying land), in overcrowded conditions,and without many basic services such aswater, sanitation and health care. Large partsof the city of Delhi lie in the oodplain of theRiver Yamuna, and are especially vulnerable.Mumbai is susceptible to rising sea levels, aslarge sections of the city are built on land re-

claimed from the sea, and to heavy monsoonrains, which can cause serious havoc as thenatural storm water drainage systems of thecity have been haphazardly built over. Kolkatahas witnessed frequent and increasingly se-vere cyclonic storms over the past few years,and is also facing a freshwater crisis, whileChennai is increasingly at risk of being struckby tidal waves (Banerjee 2011).

National policymakers have attempted torespond to these issues by creating a NationalDisaster Management Authority (NDMA),which was established under the aegis of theDisaster Management Act of 2005 and is head-ed by the Prime Minister. Since its inception,the NDMA has adopted numerous guidelineson preventing and responding to natural andman-made disasters. At the city level, too,many innovative initiatives are seen. Mumbaisdisaster management approach, adopted by

the city authorities after the ash oods of2005, is a key example (See Box 3).

Yet another form of urban insecurity is rising

crime. Urbanisation also leads to an in-creasing gap between the rich and the poor,between the formal and the informal. One ofthe results of these imbalances is exclusion-ary development, which is manifested in theseparation of poorer settlements from the en-claves of the middle-classes and the rich, theabandonment of certain neighbourhoods, thedevelopment of an architecture of fear, andthe stigmatisation of districts or communities(UN-HABITAT 2000). At the same time, crime

also limits the access of vulnerable popula-tions such as women, youth and the elderly tourban spaces, which has serious implicationsfor liveability in cities.

Rising crime af icts not only the rich, butalso the poor. Contrary to the widely-heldbelief that poverty, and the poor, are the mostimportant cause of crime, the latter are in factthe most vulnerable as they dont have themeans to defend themselves. Urban violence

erodes their social capital and prevents socialmobility and progress, especially that of theyouth, who in turn get increasingly disen-chanted (UN-HABITAT 2000). Furthermore,poorer women and girls are the most affectedby crime and violence, both in their unpro-tected dwellings and on the streets, as theyhave no protection, and often no recourse.In India, past efforts have focused mainly ondomestic violence and sexual harassment atthe workplace, sexual assault and rape, butsome recent initiatives have also attemptedto reduce violence against women in publicspaces, and increase safety and inclusion.

The National Capital Territory of Delhi, forexample, while being in the vanguard withrespect to many urban innovations, has notbeen able to successfully tackle the problemof gender-based violence, especially in itsstreets, squares, parks and public transport

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


16/22


Box 3: Upgrading Mumbais disaster management capabilities

The city of Mumbai as it exists today is formed by the merger of 7 islands in the city areawith 4 islands and hilly areas in the suburbs. Much of the area is reclaimed from the sea.The city has a gravity-based drainage system. During high tide, ood-gates have to beclosed to stop the ingress of sea water, as a result of which there is no drainage of stormwater. Water logging and oods occur when heavy rains combine with high tide conditions.The drainage network is over 150 years old and not designed for current rainfall levels.The population of greater Mumbai is over 20 million today, and it is the nancial andentertainment capital of the country. The greatest challenge, however, lies in the densityof its population. As compared to the national density of 382 people per square kilometre(sq. km.), the density of population in suburban Mumbai is 20,925 per sq. km., while that inthe island city is 20,038 per sq. km. In these circumstances, when disaster strikes, it has

the potential to affect a very large section of the population. The ash oods of July 2005were one such event. Starting at 0830 hours on the 26th July, 2005, 994 mm of rainfall wasrecorded over a period of 24 hours, which resulted in water logging in several suburbs,over ow of the Mithi River, and ooding of the Western Express Highway. Nearly 500 peoplelost their lives in the ash oods and landslides, and about 200 died due to various deluge-related illnesses. 2,000 dwellings were completely destroyed while over 50,000 were par-tially damaged. 40,000 commercial establishments were also affected. Railway tracks weresubmerged and services on all railway lines were suspended as a consequence. The airportwas also ooded and temporarily closed. Power supply was disconnected in most parts ofMumbais western suburbs on the night of the 26th July due to the danger of electrocution.Following the devastating oods, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM)

has signi cantly upgraded its disaster management system and capacities. The DisasterManagement Unit (DMU) of the Corporation now serves as a strong and effective commandand control centre, coordinating preparedness as well as response activities between theadministration, eld units and various stakeholders. The DMU is equipped with an ar -ray of communications systems (land lines, hot lines, cellular phones, wireless, Very HighFrequency (VHF) etc.), and is linked with 14 key agencies on hotlines. Each agency providesregular updates about the situation in the city. To issue warnings and enable evacuation,MCGM has installed 35 rain gauges at 28 locations across the city. The data from these sta-tions is transmitted to the DMU at 15-minute intervals. The gauges are calibrated to raisean alarm if rainfall intensity exceeds 10 mm in 15 minutes.Real-time information is provided to citizens on the website www.mumbaimonsoon.in. Thisportal also contains information on traf c and public transport diversions during oods.The DMU also engages with the population by organizing frequent training programmes ondisaster preparedness for communities, school and college students and corporate houses.The Unit is currently preparing a multi-hazard disaster plan for the city.

Source: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PHILIPPINESEXTN/Resources/05_Mumbai_Presentation_20080513.pdf, www.mumbaimonsoon.in

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


17/22


systems. This lack of safety for women, bothexperienced and perceived, signi cantlyundermines their right to the city the right tomove around freely; to use and access public

spaces and services; to make choices abouttheir place of residence, work, or leisure; andmore broadly, to make the most of the op-portunities the city has to offer (Narang Suri2010).

Box 4: Towards a Strategic Framework for womens safety in Delhi

The Draft Strategic Framework for Womens Safety in Delhi is a groundbreaking documentwhich has been developed through an extensive process of stakeholder consultations. TheFramework draws on the ndings of a large-scale safety survey of over 5,000 respondentsconducted across the city, as well as several Safety Audits and focus group discussions or-ganised over the past few years by Jagori, a leading non-governmental organisation work-ing on womens issues in Delhi and other Indian cities. The survey and other instrumentsrevealed that sexual harassment is seen as a major threat to womens safety in publicspaces in Delhi, with the roadside seen as the most unsafe place, followed closely by publictransport, as well as waiting areas for public transport. Trust in the police is extremely

low, and bystanders too refuse to get involved in incidents of harassment. Some groupssuch as poor women who live and work on the streets, the physically challenged, as well asstudents and other migrants from the north-eastern parts of the country, are particularlyvulnerable.The Framework identi es seven major areas of intervention in order to address the issueof womens safety in public spaces, which would clearly also have a positive impact onthe safety and security of the general population. These are: urban planning and designof public spaces; provision and management of public infrastructure and services; publictransport; policing; legislation, justice and support to victims; education; and, civic aware-ness and participation.For each of these seven themes, the Framework proposes a mix of physical, institutionaland policy interventions, which can be carried out in the short-, medium- and longer-term.These would require the involvement of various arms of the government as well as civilsociety, and in some cases, the private sector. Many of these have already been acted upon,for example, the installation of GPS in auto-rickshaw and taxi services; training of publictransport staff; and introduction of women-only coaches in the Delhi Metro. The biggestchallenge, however, lies in transforming attitudes towards women and womens safety inpublic spaces, including those of key policy makers, political leaders and high-level of-

cials, as well as ordinary citizens.(Source: Narang Suri 2010)

Shipra Narang Suri

To address these challenges, the Departmentof Women and Child Development, Govern-ment of Delhi, in collaboration with UNIFEM,UN-HABITAT and Jagori (a women-focused

NGO), has developed a Strategic Frameworkon Womens Safety. This Framework is therst attempt in the country to address the

issues of womens safety systematically andcomprehensively (see Box 4).

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


18/22


Indeed, to make Indian cities liveable from theperspective of inclusion, resilience and au-thenticity, which are intricately interconnect-

ed, and cannot be achieved independently ofone another, there needs to be a fundamentalshift in the way planners and policy-makersapproach urban development. Learning fromthe success stories as well as many failedinitiatives, a few factors emerge as central tomaking Indian cities liveable.

Planning legislation needs to be overhauled,in conjunction with the legal frameworkrelating to urban land. Conventional master

plans have proved to be unwieldy andimpossible to implement, while new-ageComprehensive Development Plans haveyet to be brought into the mainstream of thelegislative framework. Land managementneeds to be made more ef cient and trans -parent, with a role for both the state as wellas private developers.

Creation of extensive infrastructure, often atmassive cost, not unlike China, is often seen

Shipra Narang Suri

Building LiveableCities: The ChinaModel, or is thereAnother Way?

Unlike China, where urbanisation is a heav-ily directed and planned effort, urban growthin India can be described as largely organicand chaotic, with the planning and provisionof housing, infrastructure and basic servicesconstantly playing catch-up (often unsuccess-

fully) with such growth. The result is seenin the way larger Indian towns and cities arebeing regularly retro tted to keep up with thedemands of the burgeoning population. How-ever, the HPEC report cited earlier notes that:

To achieve both inclusion and economic growth will [] require shifting the focus of policy from creating physical infrastructureto delivering services. (HPEC 2011: XXIII)

Figure 10: Graphic depiction of womens safety concerns in an older area of Delhi. Illustration JAGORI

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


19/22


As India stands on the verge of being an eco-nomic superpower, urbanisation is a phenom-enon that can no longer be ignored or rel-egated to the backburner. Many Indian cities,

their citizens and administrators, researchersand thinkers are taking innovative steps to ad-dress the challenges of liveability, but bringingabout change across 4,000+ urban centreswhich are home to nearly 380 million peopleneeds more than one-off initiatives. Lawsand policies need to be changed, institutionsneed to be transformed, capacities need to beupgraded, and most importantly, citizens needto be empowered, if Indias cities are to ful ltheir enormous potential and become liveable

for generations to come.

by political and business leaders as thekey to resolving the urban problems. Moreimportantly, however, Indian cities needmore equitable as well as ef cient systems

of planning, stakeholder engagement andprovision and management of services.Addressing urban poverty, lack of decentshelter and urban services, and the chal-lenges of slums and homelessness need tobe accorded the highest priority.

Safety and security in cities cannot beviewed as an optional extra, but is a centralconcern of liveability. Security againstnatural and man-made disasters, as wellas crime, can be enhanced signi cantly

through better planning practices, imple-mentation and enforcement of appropriatezoning and building regulations, and theprovision of basic amenities such as water,sanitation, and electricity/lighting. This willin turn contribute signi cantly to makingcities resilient as well as inclusive.

The approach towards historic city centresneeds to shift from heritage conservationto sustainable urban revitalisation. This iscritical in order to make it people-centric

in general, and pro-poor, in particular.Historic districts not only provide a sense ofplace and authenticity to cities, but are alsoimportant economic and social hubs whosedevelopment needs to be integrated with therest of the city.

Finally, better and more reliable spatialas well as socio-economic data is neededin order to make policy decisions that aresuitable to different stakeholders in Indiantowns and cities. This requires not onlytechnological solutions but also a changein mindset, and also needs to be built intoplanning education systems and curricula.

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


20/22


References

AHC (2008). Walled City Revitalisation Project Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Heritage Centre.

Ansari, J. H. (2004). Time for a new approach in India. Habitat Debate 10 (4): 15.

Ballaney, S. and B. Patel (2009). Using the Development PlanTown Planning Scheme Mechanism toAppropriate Land and Build Urban Infrastructure. India Infrastructure Report 2009. Land - A CriticalResource for Infrastructure. New Delhi, Oxford University Press for IDFC. 190-204.

Banerjee, B. (2002). Security of Tenure in Indian Cities. Holding Their Ground: Secure land tenure for the urbanpoor in developing countries. A. Durand-Lasserve and L. Royston. London, Sterling (VA), Earthscan. 37-58.

Banerjee, I. R. (2011). How safe are our cities? The Times of India. New Delhi. March 27, 2011.

Gnaneshwar, V. (1995). Urban Policies in India - Paradoxes and Predicaments. Habitat International 19(3):293-316.

Government of India (2005a). Formulation of a City Development Plan. New Delhi, Ministry of UrbanDevelopment, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation.

Shipra Narang Suri

Endnotes

1. These ideas are currently under development aspart of the work of a think-tank on Liveable Citiesset up by the Philips Centre for Health and Well-being, of which the author is a member.

2. Since local government is a state matter accord-ing to the Constitution of India, the 74 th CAA had tobe adopted individually by each state legislaturebefore it could be applied to the local authoritiesunder its jurisdiction.

3. A similar initiative focusing on small and mediumtowns is the Urban Infrastructure DevelopmentScheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT).Planned and integrated development of urbanareas is one of the stated objectives of this pro-gramme.

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


21/22


Government of India (2005b). Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM): Overview.New Delhi, Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation.

Government of India (2006). A supplement to Toolkit on formulation of City Development Plan: Focus onHeritage. New Delhi, Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Housing and Poverty Alleviation.

Hohne, N., J. Burck, et al. (2009). Scorecards on best and worst policies for green new deal, WWF and E3G.

HPEC (2011). Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services. New Delhi, National Institute of Urban Affairs.

IDFC (2009). India Infrastructure Report 2009. Land - A Critical Resource for Infrastructure. New Delhi,Oxford University Press for IDFC.

Joshi, R. (2009). Integrated Townships as a Policy Response to Changing Supply and Demand Dynamics of

Urban Growth. India Infrastructure Report 2009. Land - A Critical Resource for Infrastructure. New Delhi,Oxford University Press for IDFC. 167-175.

Kundu, A. (2011). Politics and Economics of Urban Growth. Economic & Political Weekly XLVL (20): 10-12.

Menon, A. G. K. (2005). Heritage Conservation and Urban Development: Beyond the Monument. HeritageConservation and Urban Development. Hyderabad, India, INTACH.

Narang Suri, S. (2010). Safe City Free of Violence Against Women and Girls Initiative: A Draft StrategicFramework for Womens Safety in Delhi. New Delhi, Jagori.

Nayak, D. and A. Iyer (2008). The case of Ahmedabad: Heritage Regulations and ParticipatoryConservation. Context V(1): 175-182.

Ravindran, K. T. (2005). Cities within Cities: Plurality and Community Participation in Indian Cities. HeritageConservation and Urban Development, Hyderabad, India, INTACH.

Risbud, N. (2009). The Poor and Morphology of Cities. India Urban Poverty Report 2009. New Delhi, OxfordUniversity Press. 177-198.

Savage, D. and S. Dasgupta (2006). Governance Framework for Delivery of Urban Services. IndiaInfrastructure Report 2006 - Urban Infrastructure. 3i-Network. New Delhi, Oxford University Press. 42-58.

Sivam, A. (2002). Constraints affecting the ef ciency of the urban residential land market in developingcountries: a case study of India. Habitat International 26(4): 523-537.

Sridharan, N. (2008). Globalisation of Urban India. Economic and Political Weekly (March 8, 2008): 26-31.

Steinberg, F. (1996). Conservation and Rehabilitation of Urban Heritage in Developing Countries. HabitatInternational 20(3): 463-475.

Shipra Narang Suri Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d


22/22


UN-HABITAT (2000). Prevention of Urban Crime: Safer Cities Concept Note. Nairobi, Safer CitiesProgramme, UN-HABITAT.

UNESCO (2010). Historic Districts for All - India. A Social and Human Approach for SustainableRevitalisation. New Delhi, UNESCO.

Vaidya, C. (2009). Urban Issues, Reforms and Way Forward in India. New Delhi, Department of EconomicAffairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

Shipra Narang Suri

C o p y r

i g h t I S

O C A R P

A l l R i g h t s R

e s e v

e d

Review 07 Specimen Chapter

Documents

Transcript of Review 07 Specimen Chapter