CDP 2005: Planning the city of the future

CDP 2005: Planning the city of the future
By George K Kuruvila
This is the second part of the article suggesting how CDP 2005-2015 can reverse Bangalore’s “urban sprawl” of the last two decades. The first part appeared in DH Realty on October 28, 2005.
Deccan Herald


Urban sprawl so prevalent in Bangalore today is a result of the 1995 CDP (as discussed in the previous article). Along with the BDA’s zoning and bylaws of previous CDPs, BDA’s neighbourhood developments eg Indiranagar, Koramangala, Arkavathy Layout and its proposed “Mega Layout” facilitate/ encourage plotted “single family site” developments in Bangalore. As discussed in the previous article, this low rise/ low density growth is most uneconomical in terms of providing urban infrastructure because its low density inefficiently uses precious urban services like roads, electricity, telecommunication, water and sewage lines. It also continuously devours agricultural land in surrounding areas through continuous urban expansion.

With globalisation, and Bangalore becoming an IT / BT hub, it should further accelerate the business demand and population growth in this one of the fastest growing cities in Asia. Due to Bangalore’s seemingly uncontrollable “urban sprawl”, it has become difficult to provide matching infrastructure. Therefore, in the long term, this kind of low density development is not only inefficient but an increasingly infeasible model. Thus, higher density growth model for Bangalore is required. What are the alternatives in this regard?

Alternative model

Let us compare alternative urban planning models of other cities which have progressed through similar explosive growth stages eg Mumbai, Singapore, London and Paris and decipher what is best suitable for Bangalore.

n High rise, high density as followed in Singapore or Mumbai (say above 8 to 12 floors for Bangalore)

n Mid rise, high density as in Paris and Washington D C (say 4 to 8 floors)

n Low rise, high density through encouraging group housing eg row houses, duplexes, triplexes, and / or apartment buildings (up to 3 to 4 floors).

Singapore model

When Karnataka’s ex-chief Minister Mr S M Krishna shared his vision that he wanted Bangalore to become like Singapore, he created a stirring in the imagination of its citizens. But unfortunately his vision remained in words. Is the urban planning model of Singapore, essentially comprised of high / mid rise, high density developments suitable for Bangalore?

Ask most citizens of Bangalore including many architects and planners whether Bangalore should have high density developments through multi storey and / or mid rise buildings and their answer is mostly “No, we don’t have the infrastructure to accommodate higher density, because there is already too much congestion on our roads!” (This is sensed from the debates regarding proposed higher FAR in the Draft CDP 2005-2015). So what is the basic infrastructure we need? These are water, electricity/ power, traffic/ transportation networks, reasonable quality of air…all of which are in woeful short/ poor supply in Bangalore. Sustained shortage of any of the above infrastructure could lead to the demise of the city and urban living as we take for granted.

Recommendations to stop and reverse Bangalore’s “urban sprawl”:

n Facilitate and encourage “group housing” development over present “single family site” plotted developments.

Compare the approximate 10 single family sites per acre which BDA provides with 80 to 100 housing units which “group housing” development allows with 75 per cent or more land area open for landscaped parks, circulation and playing fields. Architect J M Benjamin who has served as chief architect of CPWD, has been in the forefront for advocating low / mid rise “group housing” over “single family” BDA site developments. He demonstrates that “group housing” requires eight to 10 times less urban land and infrastructure services than “single family” site developments, and is therefore that much more efficient in reducing “urban sprawl”.

n Revitalise and encourage a viable CBD (with proposed MRTS) by allowing higher FAR in the CBD / “neighbourhood centres” (eg in Koramangala, Indiranagar etc) than in outlying areas, thus facilitate their development as genuine centres/ focal points in the city.

The draft CDP 2005-2015 has attempted to do this and it is hoped that the final approved zoning bylaws will help reverse the current “urban sprawl” trend. As Bangalore is eligible for finance through the National Urban Renewal Mission, the development of a viable higher density CBD to reverse urban sprawl should be given top priority.

With proposed Mass Rapid Transportation System (MRTS) approved and running in a north-south and east-west axis through the central areas of Bangalore, the concept of a viable high density CBD becomes feasible. The MRTS encourages high density growth in the central areas through which it runs, and this in turn allows high rider-ship patterns to justify its high investment cost. However, as the Metro Rail is more than hundred years old in the west eg in London and New York, it is another issue altogether whether Metro Rail as envisaged, is the right form of MRTS for Bangalore. Certainly, there are more modern, efficient, speedier, cost effective systems available today.

n Encourage “mixed use” in the CBD and “neighbourhood centres” thus facilitate the concept of “Walk to Work” in such areas: The draft CDP 2005-2015 has indeed attempted to increase FAR and allow mixed use. If people are able to have residences in high density areas close to their place of work, maximum people could then walk to work within such central areas. This would be beneficial in terms of lowering traffic density, lessening pollution and last but not the least — healthier living! It is hoped the final approved CDP will allow the “walk to work” concept to take root in Bangalore CBD and other neighbourhood centres.

The criticism that the CBD should not have higher FAR (density) as this would increase vehicular traffic is not justified through experience of other world cities. In cities like Washington D C and Paris which are comprised of high density areas with mid rise buildings, many people consider it a privilege to walk along broad avenues and parkways to work. So also in cities with high rise buildings in high density areas eg New York City’s Manhattan, and in many other modern high rise CBDs, where people live close to work and prefer to walk to work.

Regarding mixed use architecture, the most interesting multi storey buildings I have seen, are those which comprise different uses in the same building eg commercial below, with office or residential above and sometimes even a hotel. The interesting architecture is derived from the scope of different elevations for different uses at different levels in the same building which the mixed uses offer, while at the same time making potential commute almost nil.

Summary

As indicated in the Draft CDP 2005-2015, the CBD and neighbourhood centres should allow much higher density mixed use, so that maximum people could “walk to work” from residence in one mid/ high rise building to another, or even in the same building. All this makes the CBD and neighbourhood centres come alive with pedestrians who live and work in the same area (not with vehicular traffic which the current “urban sprawl” encourages). For those who live outside the CBD, adequate public transportation (including MRTS, as discussed above) should be provided, thereby reducing private vehicles entering the CBD

Therefore, the concept of linking FAR with existing road width as presently required, would become secondary to the width of pedestrian sidewalks in such “walk to work” areas. Then the “lowly” pedestrian, who is totally disregarded in Bangalore’s traffic planning will have his/her right to walk again, in what was once a “garden city and pensioner’s paradise”. By freeing up land for open spaces, through allowing higher density developments along with more “group housing” and “walk to work” high density mixed use CBD and “neighbourhood centres” (as discussed in these two articles), Bangalore can once again be transformed into a “garden city”, all-be-it at a higher density scale which the evolution of the city necessitates.