Needed, a new urban vision

Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched his flagship Smart Cities Missionproclaiming that governmental intervention in planning the cities would be minimal. He referred to a “bottom-up approach”, but did not emphasise who exactly would benefit from the cities. The approach suggests that India is breaking away from its Anglo-European architectural tradition, promoted by Jawaharlal Nehru in the 1960s with the projection of Chandigarh as a template for urban planners. Nehru’s aim was to create mixed-income cities with easy access to community infrastructure and to institutions such as the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. But Mr. Modi’s urban-planning approach contradicts that view and largely resonates with American-style urbanism. The government is putting the spotlight on smart cities and allowing the business community to lead the development. Let us take an example in the U.S. to figure out who could benefit from the new urban plans in India. In New York City, most of the commercial and residential buildings from uptown to downtown Manhattan are inhabited by the rich who can afford the huge rents. They have installed biometric security systems to keep the ‘unwanted people’ — that is, the poor — at bay. The city government has largely outsourced the public services to private companies, which are replacing the labour force with mechanised technology. As a result, the job market has become saturated. The unskilled workforce is caught up in a low-wage job cycle.

Before pushing India on to a similar American path, Prime Minister Modi must step back and re-think whether his government should invest in smart cities, or rather empower the existing urban centres by means of policies that cater to poor and middle class Indians. For instance, at present almost every Indian city faces sanitation issues due to the absence or inadequacy of drainage networks. The migration of people from rural areas to the urban peripheries continues at a rapid pace, resulting in the mushrooming of slums and unauthorised colonies. According to Census 2011, some 65 million people live in slums. The government’s response to the issue in terms of planning to build affordable housing for them is short-sighted. Smart cities would simply institutionalise the disparity within the cities instead of filling the lacunae. The last decade of urbanisation did change the academic and policy consensus toward urban centres, but ignored the fringes of these centres where those from the poor and the lower-middle class who came in a large influx ended up. In Delhi, the government passed on powers to residents’ welfare associations, which now decide on the choice of basic civic matters — and they always give preference to their own gated communities. Mr. Modi must take a forward-looking stance when it comes to developing urban India. Otherwise, the glossy vision of building smart cities could end up triggering a process of social apartheid.

Keywords: Housing for All, Smart Cities missions, Narendra Modi, Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation, urban planning

Smart City: Planning Beyond Mere Slogans





Intelligent planning will be the smartest bit

We welcome the launch of the government's urban initiative. Whether this is a rebranded version of the previous government's urban renewal scheme named after Jawaharlal Nehru or not is a contest for political credit that is less important than the state support for India's urbanisation the schemes promise. As industry and services grow faster than agriculture, people move off the farm and into urban environments where industry and services grow. The process has been witnessed across the world and will be acted out in India as well. The point is to plan well ahead to manage and organise the process in a way that suits our requirements.The biggest challenge is releasing land for new urbanisation. If 25 crore people move from country to town over the next couple of decades, at Delhi's current average population density of over 12,000 people per sq km, India will need additional 20,000-odd sq km of land to be released for urbanisation. This calls for policy that will make stakeholders rather than victims out of those whose land is take up for building new towns or extending existing towns. The kind of town planning that is envisaged for new urbanisation will decide how energy-efficient, how inclusive, how secure, how healthy and how efficient future India would be. Mixed land use, high density , heavy reliance on efficient public transport, efficient connectivity with other towns are de rigueur. Civil servant-led authorities, rather than representative governments, run many new towns. This must change.
For a city to be viable, either in terms of offering the multiple, interdependent talents, skills and institutions that interact to produce new ideas and translate them into new businesses, jobs and incomes or in terms of generating revenue to finance governance and investment maintenance of infrastructure, it needs a minimum size.So does efficient disposalconversion into energy and biofertiliser of solid waste. Smartness lies in taking all these into account, not an overlay of free Wi-Fi and a smattering of e-governance.

India’s urban challenges

The Union Cabinet’s nod on Wednesday to the 100 smart cities project and a new urban renewal mission is an important first step toward dealing with an old problem that has only got progressively worse over the years: urban liveability. A shade less than a third of India’s population now lives in urban areas, overcrowded cities and towns with infrastructure bursting at the seams. This problem will only worsen with little or no intervention happening. The proportion of the urban population can only go in one direction — upward — as more Indians migrate to the cities and towns in search of jobs. Cities are engines of growth, and as a result attract a lot of people. The country’s urban population contributes over 60 per cent of India’s GDP; in 15 years this will be 70 per cent. On the other hand, there is little incentive for people to migrate out of cities. Earlier attempts at providing better urban infrastructure or at creating new townships have not been able to deal with the issue of liveability satisfactorily. Even successful special economic zones have had to contend with the issue of lack of social infrastructure, which usually means access to avenues of education, health, arts, sports, and so on. There are numerous definitions of a smart city but the Modi government’s idea of one usefully encompasses institutional infrastructure (governance), physical infrastructure, as also social infrastructure.

The Cabinet approval marks the first of many steps, as also the easiest, that will be required for the project. The challenges start now. Of course there is no doubt that this has created tremendous enthusiasm amongst many possible stakeholders, including service providers who have been part of smart city projects elsewhere in the world. Countries such as Japan, Singapore and Germany, among many others, have evinced interest to be a part of this. Yet, in its scale and complexity the project will be second to none. The official estimates of per capita investment requirement is Rs.43,386 for a 20-year period, or a total investment of Rs.7 lakh crore. Creating a smart city isn’t just about creating the physical infrastructure — roads, clean water, power, transport and so on, things India finds difficult to deliver to its citizens nearly seven decades after Independence. It is hoped that public private partnerships (PPP) will deliver but the mechanism seems to need a lot of tweaking in order for it to work, a fact acknowledged in the recent Budget. The big challenge will be to create self-sustaining cities, which create jobs, use resources wisely and also train people. This also means more autonomy for these cities. Whether that can happen is a moot question depending heavily on the maturity of the Indian political system.

Keywords: Smart City Project, smart city, urban planning

Asian cities to be worst hit by climate change

Fast-growing cities in Asia will be the worst affected by climate change because of their swelling population. Additionally, most of these cities are in disaster-prone areas such as floodplains. According to Australia-based non-profit Planetark, by 2030, 55 per cent of the 3.7 billion people in developing Asian nations will be living in cities.

“Asia-Pacific is the region of the world most affected by the impacts of climate change. This is because this is the fastest-growth region, with a lack of urban planning to accommodate the cities' expansion and especially the environmental problems,” said Pusadee Tamthai, Bangkok deputy governor at a conference on urban resilience. 

The three-day conference that concluded in Bangkok on Friday was attended by over 300 city officials, development experts and researchers from 100 cities in 30 countries in Asia, North America and Europe. 

United Nations says that Asia-Pacific is the region most affected by disasters, with 714,000 deaths from natural disasters between 2004 and 2013—more than treble the previous decade—and economic losses topping US $560 billion.

The smart res publica as basis for urban planning

TATE policy in India seems to be in thrall of the fact, highlighted by the Census of India (2011), that the urban population in India is growing at a faster pace than the rural. Those who have been studying and observing the winds of change unleashed by the post-1991 dismantling of the Nehruvian socialist economy, are aware of the myriad ways that urbanization has determined the course of all social, cultural, economic and political processes in the country.

Given that other than food production, all aspects of the Indian economy have been centred in cities for centuries, and given that food security and changing lifestyles have already distracted us from the predominantly rural nature of our population, it comes as no surprise that cities are being recognized, albeit belatedly, as ‘engines of growth’. It should be suggested, however, that the rapid growth of cities is the glamorous side of the urban transformation, whose less seemly side is conflict-ridden and requires a new set of priorities and new tools for thinking and policy formulation.

It has been noted since well before Independence that the Indian city creates and represents immense disparities between the rich and poor. The amassing of (often ill-begotten) wealth by elites manifests itself in conspicuously luxurious lifestyles that translate their power and privilege into space, form and culture. That these overly influence the articulation of developmental goals and the formulation of policies and programmes by the nation state is a natural outcome of inequality, and the Indian city is unexceptional in this regard. It is interesting, however, that the past two decades of subaltern politics and the empowerment of marginalized identities with a voice in Indian politics has not significantly reversed or altered the inequitable distribution of space and resources that marks our cities. The formation of new elites and their ascendance finds manifestation in the same way regardless of their caste and creed, and the organization of space and the forms of built environment becomes a mirror of the differences, schisms and contestations in its social matrix. This divided city must command our collective attention if the fruits of urbanization are to be shared as common wealth.

The Government of India has announced an unprecedented urban agenda. It includes the urban renewal of 500 cities, the development of 100 smart cities and the ‘rejuvenation’ of pilgrimage centres and heritage cities. The agenda aims both to complete the unfinished project of urban infrastructure development that was the thrust of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission launched in 2005-06, but also to secure the reformatory outcomes anticipated from India’s first systematic attempt at funding urban renewal. During the JnNURM’s extended course of eight years, neither did the GoI ensure that its incentive-led programme could encourage all states to devolve 18 critical functions to the urban local bodies as envisaged under the 74th Constitutional Amendment, nor did the self- proclaimed achievement of reforms actually create financially robust and sustainable local bodies as intended.

When the JnNURM was brought to a formal conclusion in mid-2014, the project of urban renewal and the building of sustainable cities remained unfinished. However, the mission irreversibly altered our terms of engagement with cities, and we now understand cities as complex phenomena generated from a highly localized and site-specific combination of tangible and intangible assets, systems of administration and control (aka ‘governance’), economic drivers and relationships, social structures, patterns of land use and settlement, and environmental impacts. Cities are borderless entities where the flows of people, capital and resources intersect in space and find order and organization as an outcome of the policies and actions of local governments. We now speak of Indian cities in a new language.

The new language of urbanism is not merely the lexicon comprising words like ‘smart’, ‘sustainable’, ‘green’, ‘livable’ and so on, which is a predictable peeve for the critics of government action who might see these as decoys meant to distract us from more real issues of deprivation and dissent. Rather, the new language is that of the economics of the city. The new urban agenda of the Government of India is to treat cities as engines of economic growth, creators of jobs and generators of common wealth.

There is nothing unusual in this articulation, as cities around the world and throughout history – even Indian history – have been the centres of trade, commerce and industry. The Indian city is home to informal industries that may generate close to 30 per cent of its GDP. However, if the ‘smart’ cities of India are to generate the dramatically enhanced number of jobs that are being imagined – a multiplication factor of ten from the existing number – and if the youth, women and other working age populations are to be brought into the workforce, then we must imagine our cities differently.

We need a crucial shift in thinking at this historic juncture towards a deeper articulation of citizenship and civic identity. Today’s discourses of ‘inclusion’ and ‘participation’ can only be meaningful if we understand the critical role of the public domain and the contribution of the citizen in determining the outcomes of economic development.

A prime example is the contentious issue of ‘public purpose’ that was evoked by the draft land acquisition policy, presently being reviewed by the government. The policy highlights an interesting contrast. In the case of a project being executed in a rural or forest location, the difference between the indigenous or local and the extraneous or intrusive is visibly established and the proverbial battle lines between ‘public’ purpose and ‘native’ rights are clearly drawn; however, the valuation of damages and compensation is extremely difficult.

In the urban context, the value of land and assets is established by the market, whereas the definition of public purpose becomes extremely fuzzy, as it rests on a notional ‘public’ that is assumed to be speaking in one voice. In both cases, the government assumes the ‘voice’ of the public, although in the rural/forest areas, that identity becomes conflated with ‘the nation’ and the national cause, whereas in the urban context, the assumption that the government represents a consensual identity can easily be challenged.

There is very little rigour in the state’s articulation of urban policies with respect to this seemingly esoteric and jurisprudential aspect. However, it now assumes critical significance because of the role that urban planning must play in the future of our cities. When reduced to a purely utilitarian exercise, urban planning becomes a handmaiden of circumstance. Thus, after the initial post-Independence and post-Partition phase, when historic urban centres were haphazardly occupied by migrants and refugees accommodated willy-nilly into existing settlement patterns, the Indian city plan became a post facto rationalization of ground conditions.

In all Indian cities, the decisions regarding planning were preempted either by slum settlements, urban villages or speculative real estate developments. The plan was less of a projection of progressive ideology, economic vision or planning per se, and more of a seeming organization of otherwise chaotic and uncontrollable components of land use and invaded natural features. If there was any semblance of planning then it appeared driven more by the lure of windfall gains, which have been one of the key contributors to the pelf and corruption that have become synonymous with the government’s role in ‘managing’ cities.

Smart cities will need to harness a radically altered understanding of public purpose and public interest because they must, by definition, be better planned cities. If planning has to deliver results, in particular support the creation of livelihoods and the enhancement of economic growth, then it must be both rational and driven by evidence and data. It may seem ironic to be arguing for rational planning in the year 2014, given that the tenets of modern town planning originated in the European Enlightenment and they were articulated into a technical discipline more than a century ago; however, we must consider it as a science that has been overwhelmed by considerations non-scientific. There is now some hope that it may recover its true purpose in the context of the smart cities programme.

Informed by the combined intelligence of data and geo-spatial mapping, the planning of our cities would be a complex system for delivering collective visions and problem-solving. Our capacity to grasp that complexity through mapping technology and to embed the intelligence that results from data into the ‘space’ of the city will create the possibilities to engage with the public in unprecedented ways.

For example, decisions about the feasibility and social sustainability of infrastructural or real estate projects could derive from informed scrutiny of the project by the public. Consultations and referendums about larger issues concerning the public at large, such as the effects of a traffic management system or the location of education and health facilities, could become the basis for policy and regulatory interventions. The rehabilitation of settlements for the urban poor could be informed by intelligence about land values, access to transportation, locations of work centres and schools and hospices.

The ‘death of the commons’ has been a nefarious notion in urban discourse for the past couple of decades. The crippling grasp of its cynicism, which was reinforced by the palpable reality of disenchanted and alienated citizens – hapless participants in the first wave of global commodification – has resulted in unsustainable, unproductive and highly vulnerable cities. The smartness of cities in India can harness the collective smartness of their citizens, and information and communication technology can enable governments to access that collective smartness in ways unimaginable in the analog and non-digital world. Whether we will choose to leverage this opportunity will be determined by the quality and level of our faith in the potential of participation, and whether we still believe that the city is the cradle of democracy.

Feb 12 2015 : The Times of India (Delhi)

Growth factor: No desi city in Top 10

Chidanand Rajghatta

Washington:





Only 6 Indian Metros Among Top 100 In An Economic Performance Index

The hurly-burly is done; the electoral battle is lost and won. As the poll dust settles over Delhi, the two men who matter most in the city may want to mull over the dismal rating of India's capital and premier metropolis in the world's growth chart, a scroll in which no Indian city makes the Top 10 or even Top 15.The Brookings Institution's 2014 Global Metro Monitor Map that measures and compares growth patterns in the world's 300 largest metro economies puts Delhi at 18th place, followed by Kolkota (among Indian cities) at 32nd.Mumbai (52) Chennai (57) Hyderabad (76) and Bangalore (87), round up the Indian cities in the Top 100, which expectedly is dominated by Chinese cities. China has 11 cities in the Top 20, and four in the Top 10.Surprisingly, Turkey has four in the Top 10, including Izmir, Istanbul, and Bursa at two, three and four, respectively. Macau got the top spot. The report compares growth patterns in the world's 300 largest metro economies on two key economic indicators -annualized growth rate of real GDP per capita and annualized growth rate of employment.
These indicators, which are combined into an economic performance index on which metro areas are ranked, matter because they reflect the importance that people and policymakers attach to achieving rising incomes and standards of living and generating widespread labour market opportunity, the report says.
There is increasing emphasis by planners in recent years on cities because, as the report shows, with only 20% of the population, the 300 largest metropolitan economies in the world accounted for nearly half of global output in 2014.
Despite the dismal ranking of Indian cities, they have all improved on their rankings from the 2009-2014 period, pointing to better prospects.
Most of the growth in the cities surveyed is occurring in developing countries, particularly in Asia.
The highest ranked developed western city is London, which is placed at 26, and the top ranked American city is Austin at 38.

Nov 20 2014 : The Times of India (Delhi)

Smart city project irks NE village

New Delhi: TIMES NEWS NETWORK





The Thaudao Students Association and about 150 villagers from a tiny village along the Manipur-Myanmar border near Moreh town have submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) on Wednesday against illegal land acquisition for a smart city project.Haolenphai is a tribal village mainly inhabited by the Kuki tribe where about 3000 acres of land is reportedly in the process of being acquired for a commercial township as part of the government's initiative to build 100 smart cities in India. The villagers however claim that selling or giving away land is against their custom and would mean loss of livelihood for the villagers.
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com

Mumbai world’s least expensive city: Survey

Kounteya Sinha TNN 

London: For an average Indian, living costs in Mumbai may be a nightmare. But the new Worldwide Cost of Living 2014 index has thrown up an interesting finding. India’s city of dreams has emerged as the world’s cheapest city to live in. 
    The analysis takes into account the concept of value of money — how much bread would you get for one dollar or for that matter a litre of petrol. While Mumbai has emerged as the city with the best value for money spent, Delhi has emerged the third cheapest, placing it right at the bottom of the world’s most expensive cities. For example, buying 1kg bread in Mumbai would cost $0.91 while in Delhi it would be $1.05 as against $3.36 in Singapore which has toppled Tokyo to be the world’s most expensive city to live in this year. The average cost of one litre unleaded petrol in Mumbai is $1.21 and in Delhi $1.14 as against $2.50 in Paris — the world’s second most expensive city. 
    Singapore topped 131 cities globally to become the world’s most expensive city to live in 2014, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). 
    The Index says, “Within Asia the best value for money is in the Indian subcontinent (defined as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka). Mumbai is the cheapest location in the survey. Mumbai’s title as the world’s cheapest city is a reflection of the structural factors that define price within the Indian subcontinent.” 
    Besides Singapore, cities making up the top five most expensive cities to live in are Paris, Oslo, Zurich and Sydney, with Tokyo falling to sixth place.