Cochin 1984 to 2024: Looking through Google maps' history!

 

Cochin 1984 to 2024 1985 was when I took the train from Cochin to Trivandrum to join CET's Department of Architecture as first year student of B Arch program.  These images provoke a whole lot of emotions and a possible whole lot of debate of what is visible and what is not and their whys!  Cochin 1984: Age of Innocence?

Cochin 1994: Age of Opportunity

Idea of the Airport, birth of Real Estate players and land speculation

COCHIN 2004: Coming of Age

Vallarpaadam land reclamation, Airport, city expansion

COCHIN 2014: Full throttle!

Look out for how the triangle of Ernakulam, Moovattupuzha (through Perumbavoor) and Angamally is getting reinforced.

COCHIN 2024: Feeling used, exploited; and exhausted!

Post 2018 floods and 2020 Pandemic, yet lacking vision about economic growth direction. Getting more poly-nucleated at the regional level, faster transport linkages internally. The hard crust gets more legible over the softer under-belly. The small island from the dredged deposits has now grown into a large mass (probably just submerged below surface). A future bone of contention.

 

The Crucial Role of Property Rights in the Fabric of Urban Design

 

Introduction

In the labyrinth of urban development, the threads of property rights weave through the tapestry of cities, shaping their design, evolution, and the lives within them. As nations grapple with rapid urbanization, the discourse around property rights—often seen through the lens of legal jargon and economic theory—emerges as a pivotal factor influencing urban landscapes. This exploration delves into the symbiotic relationship between property rights and urban design, unraveling its complexities and spotlighting India's unique journey.

The Global Stage: Property Rights in Urban Design

At the heart of urban design lie property rights, the legal entitlements associated with the ownership and use of land. They dictate the development, utilization, and transfer of land, influencing the mosaic of urban spaces. Globally, the interplay between property rights and urban design manifests in varied urban forms, from the structured elegance of Parisian boulevards to the organic sprawl of Rio's favelas.

The significance of property rights extends beyond mere ownership. They are instrumental in fostering economic investment, shaping land use policies, and facilitating or hindering urban development. In cities worldwide, the clarity and enforcement of property rights are directly linked to the efficiency of land markets, the creation of sustainable urban spaces, and the ability to attract capital for development projects.

Theoretical Underpinnings

The relationship between property rights and urban design is anchored in several key theories. The Coase Theorem, in its broadest definition of the idea of ‘property’ rights, suggests that in the presence of clear property rights and the absence of transaction costs, parties can negotiate to resolve conflicts in a way that maximizes economic efficiency, irrespective of who holds the rights initially. This principle underlines the importance of well-defined property rights in shaping urban landscapes that are both economically vibrant and spatially efficient.

Similarly, the concept of "Tragedy of the Commons" highlights the challenges of common property resources, like urban public spaces, where the absence of exclusive rights can lead to overuse and degradation. Thus, the delineation of property rights is crucial for the sustainable management and design of shared urban environments.

The underlying tension between the Coase Theorem and the "Tragedy of the Commons" lies in the balance between individual negotiations over property rights, which the Coase Theorem advocates for economic efficiency, and the collective action problems highlighted by the "Tragedy of the Commons," where individual incentives can lead to resource depletion. They reconcile in urban land ownership through regulatory frameworks and community management strategies that aim to protect common resources while facilitating efficient market transactions and land use planning, ensuring both individual and collective benefits.

India's Urban Canvas: A Complex Mosaic

Transitioning to India, the urban narrative is intricately tied to its property rights regime, a complex tapestry shaped by historical, legal, and socio-economic threads. India's urban explosion, marked by burgeoning cities and megacities, brings to the fore the critical role of property rights in urban design and planning.

Historical Legacy

India's property rights landscape is a palimpsest, bearing the imprints of colonial legacies, post-independence reforms, and contemporary legal frameworks. The British colonial administration introduced the concept of eminent domain (Eminent domain is the power of the government to take over private property and put it to public use, after paying a just compensation.) and land revenue systems, laying the groundwork for modern property rights. Post-independence, India embarked on land reforms aimed at redistributing land and enhancing tenure security, albeit with mixed success.

Today's Indian property rights regime is a complex fusion of traditional customs, statutory laws, evolving policies, and an array of socio-ecological factors, reflecting the rich diversity and dynamic challenges of its urban fabric. This intricate mosaic is further complicated by ecological considerations, constitutional amendments aimed at addressing land reform and social equity, social unrests that often challenge the status quo of land ownership, religious rituals that can dictate land use in certain areas, and natural disasters which necessitate flexible and resilient urban planning. Together, these elements interact with both formal and informal property rights, profoundly influencing land use patterns, housing developments, public spaces, and ultimately, the entire spectrum of urban design and development. This complexity underscores the need for a holistic approach to urban planning that considers not just the legal framework of property rights, but also the socio-ecological and cultural dimensions that uniquely characterize Indian cities.

Urban Design and Property Rights: The Indian Context

In India, the nexus between property rights and urban design is evident in several dimensions. First, the clarity and enforcement of property rights impact land acquisition for public infrastructure projects, urban renewal initiatives, and housing schemes. Secure property rights are essential for mobilizing land for development while ensuring equitable compensation and resettlement for affected parties.

Second, India's urban sprawl and the proliferation of informal settlements underscore the challenges of weak property rights enforcement. In cities like Mumbai and Delhi, informal settlements house a significant portion of the urban population, operating outside the formal legal and planning frameworks. These settlements, while showcasing resourcefulness and community resilience, also highlight the need for integrating informal housing within the urban design process, ensuring access to services and sustainable living conditions.

Furthermore, the legal framework governing land acquisition in India, primarily through the Land Acquisition Act and its subsequent amendments, plays a pivotal role in shaping property rights and urban design. Initially designed to facilitate the acquisition of land for public projects and infrastructure development, the Act and its amendments have evolved to address concerns over fair compensation, resettlement, and rehabilitation of affected landowners and communities. These legal provisions underscore the government's attempt to balance the need for urban development with the protection of individual property rights. The amendments aim to make the process more transparent and equitable, reflecting a growing recognition of the need to harmonize development objectives with social justice and environmental sustainability.

Policy Innovations and Challenges

Addressing the intricacies of property rights in urban design, India has embarked on several policy innovations. The "Smart Cities Mission" and "AMRUT" (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation) aim to modernize urban infrastructure, enhance sustainability, and improve living standards, with property rights reforms being a critical component. Additionally, initiatives like the "Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana" (PMAY) seek to provide affordable housing to the urban poor, underscoring the role of secure tenure in achieving housing for all.

However, the path is fraught with challenges. Legal ambiguities, bureaucratic hurdles, and conflicts between traditional land-use practices and modern urban planning objectives pose significant obstacles. Balancing the rights of land owners with the needs of urban development requires nuanced policy frameworks that recognize the multifaceted nature of property rights and their critical role in shaping urban environments.

Beyond these initiatives, India is also exploring innovative urban planning tools such as Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Accommodation Reservation (AR) to further refine the reconstitution of urban property rights. TOD focuses on creating high-density, mixed-use areas around transit stations to reduce reliance on private vehicles and promote sustainable urban growth. TDR allows landowners in areas designated for conservation or low-density use to transfer their development rights to other areas, facilitating controlled urban expansion without compromising green spaces or heritage sites. Accommodation Reservation (AR) mandates developers to provide certain public amenities or reserve a portion of their development for public use, integrating community needs directly into urban design. These tools not only aim to optimize land use and support sustainable urban development but also strive to balance the economic and social dimensions of property rights within the urban design framework.

Engaging the Community: A Path Forward

A transformative approach to integrating property rights with urban design involves engaging communities as active stakeholders in the urban planning process. Participatory planning methods, where residents have a say in the development and management of urban spaces, can lead to more equitable and sustainable urban environments. This approach not only empowers communities but also ensures that property rights are respected and protected, fostering urban designs that are inclusive and reflective of the diverse needs of the urban populace.

Building on the foundation of participatory planning, the integration of property rights with urban design through community engagement has seen innovative implementations across the globe. These practices offer valuable insights into creating urban environments that are not only inclusive but also sustainable and rich in common assets.

Barcelona's Superblocks Program: Barcelona, Spain, introduced the "Superblocks" program, a pioneering urban planning initiative that reimagines the city grid into larger blocks where traffic is significantly reduced, and public spaces are expanded. This approach was developed through extensive community consultation, allowing residents to play a critical role in reshaping their neighborhoods. The result has been a dramatic increase in public spaces for pedestrians, improved air quality, and enhanced community interactions, showcasing the power of community engagement in urban design while respecting individual property rights.

Portland's Neighborhood Involvement: In Portland, Oregon, USA, the Office of Community & Civic Life has long championed neighborhood involvement in urban planning. Through tools such as participatory budgeting and community advisory boards, residents have a direct say in how their neighborhoods are developed and managed. This inclusive approach has led to innovative local projects that reflect community needs and values, from green infrastructure to affordable housing initiatives, demonstrating how democratic participation can coexist with individual property rights to foster vibrant urban communities.

Singapore's Smart Nation Initiative: Singapore's Smart Nation initiative leverages digital technology and data to engage citizens in urban planning and governance. Through platforms like "REACH" and mobile apps for reporting municipal issues, the city-state encourages active citizen participation. This digital engagement strategy, coupled with a strong emphasis on protecting property rights, has enabled Singapore to develop efficiently and sustainably, ensuring that urban design reflects the collective input and aspirations of its residents.

Seoul's Digital Participatory Budgeting: Seoul, South Korea, has embraced digital participatory budgeting, allowing citizens to propose and vote on urban development projects online. This innovative approach has democratized the urban planning process, ensuring that projects from neighborhood parks to infrastructure improvements align with community preferences. By integrating digital platforms with a commitment to respecting property rights, Seoul has fostered a more inclusive and responsive urban development process.

Helsinki's Open Data Policy: Helsinki, Finland, has adopted an open data policy, making a vast array of urban data available to the public. This transparency encourages citizen-led urban initiatives and participatory planning, with community groups using data to advocate for urban improvements and policy changes. Helsinki's approach underscores the potential of open data to empower communities, inform urban design, and uphold property rights, all while fostering the creation of shared urban assets.

These examples from around the world highlight the diverse ways in which cities can engage communities in urban planning, respecting property rights while fostering the development of common assets. Whether through neighborhood-level initiatives, state policies, digital platforms, or data-driven decision-making, these practices demonstrate that inclusive urban development is not only possible but also beneficial for creating sustainable and vibrant urban spaces. By learning from these global experiences, cities can innovate and adapt participatory methods to their unique contexts, ensuring that urban design is a collaborative process that values and protects the rights and needs of all citizens.

Leveraging Technology for Transparent Property Rights

Technological advancements offer unprecedented opportunities to streamline property rights management and enhance transparency in urban design processes. Blockchain technology, for instance, can provide secure and transparent systems for recording and transferring property titles, reducing fraud and disputes over land ownership. Similarly, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing technologies can assist in accurate land-use planning, enabling more informed decisions that respect property rights while promoting efficient urban development.

India's Urban Future: A Collaborative Vision

As India continues to navigate its urban transformation, the interconnection between property rights and urban design will play a critical role in shaping its cities. The challenge lies in crafting policies that are flexible enough to accommodate the complexities of India's urban landscape while firm enough to protect and enforce property rights. Collaborative efforts between the government, private sector, civil society, and communities will be pivotal in realizing a vision of urban development that is sustainable, equitable, and vibrant.

The journey of intertwining property rights with urban design in India is emblematic of a broader global challenge. It underscores the necessity of viewing property rights not just as legal instruments but as foundational elements that underpin the very fabric of urban life. By reimagining property rights within the context of urban design, cities can become more than just places of residence and commerce; they can evolve into inclusive, dynamic communities that reflect the aspirations and values of all their inhabitants.

As India forges ahead with its urban transformation, recognizing urban development as a state subject adds another layer of complexity and opportunity to the mix. Each state in India boasts its unique historical context, demographic profile, economic vitality, ecological considerations, and governance mechanisms. These factors collectively influence the potential and the dynamics of community engagement platforms, making a one-size-fits-all approach to urban planning impractical.

Diverse Landscapes of Engagement

The diversity across states—from the technologically vibrant Karnataka to the culturally rich West Bengal, from the rapidly urbanizing Gujarat to the ecologically sensitive Kerala—means that each region requires tailored strategies for integrating property rights with urban design. States differ not only in their physical and economic landscapes but also in the degree of public engagement, market participation, and civic awareness among their populace. These disparities necessitate a decentralized approach to urban development, where policies and engagement platforms are designed to align with the specific needs, aspirations, and challenges of each state's urban centers.

Leveraging Digital Engagement

In this context, digital engagement emerges as a potent tool for bridging gaps and enhancing participatory urban planning. With a vast majority of India's population now having access to smartphones and the internet, digital platforms offer unprecedented opportunities for civic administration to engage with citizens directly. From online forums for discussing urban projects to apps for reporting local issues, digital tools can democratize urban planning, making it more accessible, transparent, and responsive.

The potential of digital engagement in India is not just about widespread access but also about leveraging data and technology to inform better urban design and property rights policies. For instance, GIS mapping can help in understanding land use patterns, while mobile apps can gather real-time data on traffic, pollution, and public spaces usage. These insights can guide more informed decisions, ensuring urban development is both data-driven and aligned with the community's needs.

The Future of Urban Development Tools

India stands at a pivotal point where it can leapfrog traditional urban planning challenges through innovative use of digital engagement tools. The success of such initiatives, however, hinges on crafting and communicating clear value aspirations by civic administrations. It requires not just the deployment of digital infrastructure but also building trust and participation among the citizens. Engaging educational campaigns, transparent decision-making processes, and feedback mechanisms are essential in fostering a participatory culture where citizens feel empowered and invested in the urban development process.

Furthermore, effective digital infrastructure must be complemented by on-the-ground initiatives that encourage community involvement. Hybrid models of engagement, combining digital platforms with traditional town hall meetings, workshops, and public exhibitions, can cater to diverse populations across different states, ensuring inclusive participation.

Crafting a Collaborative Vision

The future of urban development in India lies in embracing these digital and participatory tools within a framework that respects the nuances of each state's unique context. By aligning technological advancements with the rich tapestry of India's urban landscapes, there is an opportunity to create cities that are not only smart and sustainable but also reflective of the diverse cultures, histories, and aspirations of their inhabitants.

This collaborative vision for India's urban future emphasizes the importance of clear, communicative, and participatory governance. It underlines the need for policies that are as dynamic and adaptable as the cities they aim to shape, supported by a robust digital infrastructure that engages citizens directly in the urban design process. As India navigates its urban transformation, the integration of property rights, digital engagement, and participatory planning stands as a beacon for creating more inclusive, equitable, and vibrant urban environments.

 Conclusion

The dialogue between property rights and urban design, enriched by global insights and deeply rooted in the unique challenges and aspirations of India, underscores a profound truth: the essence of urban development lies in its ability to harmonize individual rights with communal goals. As we navigate the complexities of urbanization, the integration of property rights into urban planning emerges not just as a legal necessity but as a foundational pillar for building sustainable, inclusive, and vibrant cities.

Innovative policy frameworks, bolstered by the spirit of community engagement and leveraged through cutting-edge technological platforms, offer a roadmap for crafting urban spaces where equity, resilience, and prosperity thrive. By weaving the principles of property rights into the fabric of urban design, we unlock the potential to transform cities into living ecosystems that reflect the collective dreams and values of their inhabitants.

Looking ahead, the evolving narrative of property rights and urban design invites us to reimagine the future of urban spaces. It challenges us to think beyond traditional boundaries, to embrace the diversity of experiences and to foster a participatory culture where every voice contributes to the symphony of urban development. In this endeavor, India stands at the forefront, exemplifying the transformative power of integrating property rights with urban planning. The country's journey offers invaluable lessons on the resilience of communities, the importance of adaptive policies, and the boundless possibilities that emerge when people are at the heart of urban design strategies.

As we envision the cities of tomorrow, let us champion the cause of sustainability, inclusivity, and justice, guided by the conviction that the true essence of urban spaces lies in their ability to accommodate the myriad stories of those who call them home. In this collective pursuit, the interplay between property rights and urban design not only shapes the physical contours of our cities but also the very soul of urban living, promising a future where cities are not just habitable spaces but sanctuaries of human dignity and freedom.

 

 

URBAN DESIGN PERSPECTIVE TOWARDS REBUILDING KERALA

The warmth and social cohesiveness witnessed during the floods has invigorated the hopes of Keralites when the phrase “Rebuilding Kerala” is professed.

The spirit of egalitarian social warmth shall have to be the bedrock of a Vision amidst the debate of “development vs ecology” that shall soon rage. We cannot take sides here. We need to device our own ways to conduct our lives within this ecological region called Kerala. And to get that going, we need to create a wide consultation process that needs to be first and foremost out-in-the-open, transparent and evolving.

Process creates the Form

So, before we try to define “Rebuilding Kerala”, we need to certainly unravel the process that is producing the Kerala that we still have, with its opportunity to rebuild. We have the privilege of hindsight to seek remedial changes in them, so that we move towards a more satiating Form for Kerala.

A revision is due, to alter the larger political agenda, the governance mechanism and the administrative priorities, and the Rules that govern us. We need to alter the Process that generates the Form!

Tinkering our Governance Mechanism for Land-use:

While it is true that we have Institutions of great merit like the Geological Survey of India (GSI), Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS) etc; and that they have collated vast tranches of knowledge which have direct bearing on the conduct of lives in Kerala, we still are far away from making practical, functional, real-time application of such available wisdom on the ground. So, areas clearly demarcated as unfit for construction ought not to get a legal building permit. The method that needs to be employed should not be draconian or solely restrictive in a nature. If that is so, the force of demand will learn to subvert the system that denies it.

It is the Local Self Government (LSG) that has the power to prepare the local development plan. It is true that Plans thus prepared and approved by the LSG has the power to over-ride all the other existing building/ development controls/ rules that shape our built form. Then, why does our LSG create plans that permits or does not deny construction in a zone not recommended for such activity?

The history of such places is that there never was any law that abjectly denied permission for construction anywhere. However, neither was there any pressure on land as to attempt to build on such known fragile lands. As development pressures mounted and need to capitalise on the land value of such fragile land also grew, no elected local government had the nerve to announce a restrictive law. As an energetic democracy, let us not assume that any such restrictive law would be passed too soon either; especially so, when the people of the State are emotionally and economically stressed.

There has to be a win-win solution where the person owning the fragile land does not lose out on the opportunity to enjoy its development potential even while he does nothing to alter the nature of the land.

There are two broad case scenarios here; Listing activities that are permissible within the fragile area and complete denial of construction activity. (No Development Zone, NDZ)

If the only land your family owns is in the “non-buildable” ecologically sensitive area by definition, then what is your recourse? If the system cannot effectively compensate you, the State cannot protect its ecology. Then, we are back to square one!

Post rehab stage, the government would need to identify land parcels for re-densification. That is, to allow more housing stock to come up within existing settlements. This is an idea that is very difficult to implement with the available legal tools at the disposal of the government. However, such objective of increasing density within existing urban fabric can be achieved using Acts that already exist in India in some States. This is where Urban Design comes in.

In our urban physical planning; and more precisely, in the administrative service delivery of urban planning by the government, there exists today, a large void- a missing link. Between the very large maps showings broad land-use plans at the city level (Master Plans) and the architectural/ building controls stated within the Kerala Municipal/Panchayat Building Rules (KMBR), we need a bridge that connects these two ideas. That is the role of Urban Design.

This role & task of Urban Design, that would connect the smallest parts of the urban fabric (that is, individual buildings) to the larger networks of public spaces, transportation, urban ecology, services like water supply- sewerage systems- storm water management, pedestrian safety etc, is ill-defined and effectively missing in our cities today.

A small portion of this attempted by the Town Planning Department in the form of Detailed Town Planning Schemes (DTP schemes). However, all Town Planners are aware of how much more valuable a detailed urban Design proposal can be; with its inherent capability for translating built densities into a cohesive and functional urban form that integrates open space network, architectural components and services. Urban Design brings in legibility, character and liveability to the intent of the large Master Plans. Master Plans remain unfulfilled now, due to lack of Urban Design.

THE NEED TO RE-DENSIFY

The availability of well-serviced land has been seriously inadequate due to our poor history of urban planning. The demand for quality usable land is set to spiral in Kerala even without the newly induced pressure from the flood-plain management and the recommendations from noted environmentalists. Hence, further densification of our settlement in a more organised, planned and sensitive manner is an urgent prerogative. Densification should not be needlessly equated with more concrete and squalor. It is potentially a pro-life idea where more accessible green areas are liberated and quality urban life is provided more equitably. Lower energy footprints can be achieved through thoughtful re-densification. 

The degree of re-densification needed in various parts of the State has to be quantified from a deeper study and has to be done in a comprehensive manner accommodating inputs from institutions like GSI, CESS, Social Scientists, Ecologists, Real Estate Industry, Town Planning Department, Urban Designers, Architects, Economists, Agricultural Scientists, elected representatives, and all other stakeholders.

However, the tools needed for the re-densification process to occur needs to be put in place. Many governance tools for re-densification of settlements are in use in various parts of the country and the world. The role of such tools or governance mechanism is to create an administrative environment where the energies in the market operate freely to achieve the built density pattern envisaged by the Detailed Town Planning or Urban Design Scheme (DTS or UDS) over a period of time incrementally.

Tool 1: LAND POOLING ACT:

The current built form of an urban settlement is driven by the Kerala Municipal Building Rules (KMBR) using tools like Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Coverage, setbacks etc which are linked to the assigned permitted land-use on the site. That is, the form or density of built-form is created based on the existing ownership pattern of the land, access width to the land and the permissible land-use. Hence, the built-form or density is not related in any manner to its geographic location.

In other words, no Town Planner is ever aware beforehand, as to where in the city the next high-rise apartment is going to be proposed unless and until an application seeking permission for it lands up on his table. This is a very major lacunae in that, the Town Planner is unable to predict or pre-decide the specific location of high- or low-density development within the Town Planning Scheme and hence is not a position to provide adequate water supply, sewerage or transportation system. This is the single biggest failure of the Town Planning system that we have now.

Another extremely cruel failure that happens as a corollary to the above is the inability of such Town Planning mechanism to create parks or open spaces for the settlement.

This Act is needed to redesign the scenario. The other name for this Act is Land Reconstitution Act. What it does is to first collate information on current ownership pattern as the base record, and then, the land holdings are reworked into a more efficient layout plan with better serviceability/ utility of plots. Plots are assigned specific development densities through a stated maximum permissible built-up area statement. Some have high density while others are medium and a few are earmarked as open spaces as per the Urban Design Scheme.

Ownership patterns are altered marginally mostly and drastically in some cases. A system of reassigning real estate/ values based on the new opportunity is done and the same are redistributed as gains and losses. Such schemes are designed to achieve greater overall density even as they liberate meaningful network of open spaces.

The role of digital technology in the creation, publication, review and execution of this process is tremendous in its capacity for efficiency as well as transparency.

The question of how the person whose land is marked out as no-development zone either for being ecologically fragile like a wet land or as a flood plain or due to CRZ or for a children’s park, can be compensated, still remains and that is where the next tool is relevant and inevitable to the success of the first.

Tool 2: TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)

This idea has been mooted for some time now. The true purpose of this Act is to compensate a land owner WITHOUT actually acquiring the land from the owner at market rates. Land Pooling Schemes are done within specific Scheme boundaries. TDR shall also be complete binding within their respective Land Pooling Schemes, otherwise, it shall lead to large scale corruption and fraud.

Tool 3: LAND TRIBUNAL

Needless to say, there are bound to be perceived and genuine injustices meted out by such schemes. It is thus mandated that we also constitute a grievance redressal system in the form a Land Tribunal to specifically handle issues that pertain to the implementation of the Act. This would ensure speedier redressal without which the pace and energy of the intended Scheme itself could be jeopardised.

Role of IT:

Digital Revenue data, overlays of GIS maps, 3D modelling on GIS, using such models in real time with TDR database, managing the financial modelling of LP schemes & its TDR support eco-system, locating real-time data sensors for managing services like water supply, storm water management, traffic flow, firefighting, etc are components that can actually reduce administrative costs and turn our governance and the city, more citizen-friendly. Money is already being spent on such digital infrastructure in bits and unconnected parcels, but as and when they attain critical mass, we have the opportunity for carefully integrating them for our collective good.

Kerala is poised at the threshold of a major relook at its self-image; hope has risen in our people for an attitudinal change in resetting our development agenda. The World Bank in their recommendations suggests, “Land use planning allows communities to guide the location, type, density, and timing of development through regulations, public infrastructure investments, market incentives, and conservation of natural resources such that development is safe from flood disaster and in harmony with a sustainable urban water cycle.”

Evolving a new vision for an Urban Settlement Pattern with a carefully choreographed urban re-densification is indeed a positive tool to address our environmental concerns.

ENVISAGING POST-FLOOD REBUILDING IN KERALA-1

With little regard to people who warned us of climate change and environmental insensitivity, we, in Kerala filled up our wetlands, denuded the green cover, encroached our flood plains, filled large swathes of our backwater systems, replaced dense forests with cash crops, filled paddy fields, and choked drainage channels by dumping garbage and encroaching. A few days of unending rains gave us a flood that we never believed would ever occur here.

As the shock of the event unfolded, our people came together, burying our differences and staved off the tragedy with a camaraderie that’s envied by the world. We need to make good use of the opportunity brought in by the crisis, to do some critical appraisal of our attitude towards the way we conduct our lives in this unique ecological zone called Kerala.

One of our poor qualities has been our lack of respect for our own institutions; especially institutions embedded in specific sciences, like National Centre of Earth Science Studies, Geological Survey of India, etc. A very long list it would be, indeed. The fact remains that the quality of research produced in such places are of exceptional quality, but, conditions on real firm ground, would suggest that as a society we have poor knowledge base.

Take for instance, the state of our roads. We have numerous Engineering institutions with highly qualified engineers and well-equipped laboratories that can study the soil conditions and make recommendations for roads that can survive for decades with little or damage under severe conditions. But, the quality of our roads would suggest that we do not have the competence or resources to build good roads. The failure lies in the inability of the system to accommodate the knowledge that’s inherent in the Institutions to be part of the service delivery of the governance mechanism. A disconnect that is consciously ignored by the bureaucracy. Such conditions often leave the poor state of our roads open to criticism and some well-meaning activism by various agencies. We would have local traders, film actors, trade unionists, residents’ associations etc volunteering to fill up pot-holes to make the road more usable. Most such interventions earn short term appreciation while leading to long term damage due to the lack of any scientific basis to such well-meaning, good intentions. The root cause remains the lack of respect for our institutions shown by our own governance system and our inability to put to use, their real competence.

But post-flood, there has been an order brought out by the Additional Secretary to the Govt, Disaster Management (A) Department, GO (MS) No.20/2018/DMD dated 07/09/2018 that shows a completely different spirit.  Firstly, it acknowledges in its order that institutions like NCESS, GSI etc are in working relationship with the government and are the stated authority to produce assessment reports of the floods. It goes on to state further that, The Govt. of Kerala & KSDMA will accept only one report with recommendations and one set of maps as prepared and approved by the ‘Regional Committee for Scientific Assessment of Flood Prone Areas’.

In the same order, lies another statement, “KSDMA will launch a crowd sourcing platform for availing grass-root level data of inundation depths and landslide locations with the help of a Start Up Mission approved StartUp.”  This statement, particularly heralds a completely new take on how a government can not only depend on its own institutions, but also, simultaneously take in real time data from open general sources; in this case, to fill in “grass-root level” information. The fact that Information Technology (IT) with its wide reach into the citizenry is being considered a participatory component in the governance mechanism offers a huge template for public engagement in the governance process. This has far reaching repercussions in the context of the 74^th Constitutional Amendment and our Peoples Planning Initiative.

That is an entirely new segment that needs to be explored and employed by the government very earnestly.

Once these government institutions table their reports with maps and recommendations, the government will have to act on those recommendations. It goes without saying that not all the recommendations will be considered popular, especially with elections around the corner. This will open up the usual debate of “Development Vs Ecology” all over again. This is a wrong question. There is no football match between Development and Ecology. We cannot take sides here. This topic needs to be re-framed.

What we need is a “Manifesto for Life within the Ecological region called Kerala”. In order to get this Manifesto correct, we need to create a wide consultation process that is first and foremost out-in-the-open, transparent and evolving. The government itself has shown us the initial template through that order we discussed. We need to engage the Institutions, Political parties, Bureaucracy and the civil society/ citizenry etc in not only creating the Manifesto, but also in trying to keep it relevant through live modification as needs and aspirations evolve.

Post-flood rebuilding is new to us, but in itself, is not a new process. There are many places in the world that have faced such conditions and we can learn from their experiences while accommodating such ideas to our context.

There are primarily two major aspects to this process. Land-use planning and the regulatory mechanism. While Land-sue planning sets the physical agenda, the regulatory mechanism ensures its implementation. Neither of them is easy to change from the already existing formats without dramatic political will and public acceptance.

Objectives of land-use planning would be to:

• Frequency of flooding predicted by the Institutions must be given due diligence
• Minimise development in flood prone zones
•  Restoration of reclaimed land to the river
• Accommodate urban growth in flood-safe zones
• Manage open space systems effectively
• Increase water retention capacity of major water bodies, wetlands, open spaces

Development Plan objectives shall:

• ·        Each Level-of-risk-zone to have different land-use strategies appropriate to the zone.
• ·        Promote better and more resilient construction practices
• ·        Create a green network involving parks, wetlands, storm water storage and harvesting.
• ·        Build multifunctional community safe houses for high-risk areas that cannot be resettled, like for Kuttanad.
• ·        Mark a regulatory flood protection level/ height in affected areas.
• ·        Accommodate location specific solutions within the larger plan.

Regulatory mechanism would have to ensure:

• ·        Implement zoning based on risk assessment, geology and water system-based management plans
• ·        Prioritize all public investments in infrastructure including transportation, housing, community facilities, heritage management and economic development based on such zoning.
• ·        Use economic instruments like tax incentives, land-based finance, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) etc to achieve the desired spread of densities.
• ·        Influence community behaviour through information dissemination.
• ·        Use participatory planning mechanism to create local development plans
• ·        Educating people about flood risk management.
• ·        Employ local technical support in planning and design of Local Development Plans as they will be available all year round unlike one-time external consultancies. Indian Institute of Architects (IIA), Institute of Urban Designers India (IUDI), Indian Society of Landscape Architects (ISOLA), School of Marine Sciences, School of Environmental Studies etc are organisations present in Kerala with very specialised skills that must be tapped into.
• ·        Land tenure related issues must be addressed and accommodated with the participation of the ward-level elected representatives.
• ·        Flood risk knowledge base must be constantly updated. Community participation in the development process has to be strengthened by co-opting groups like Kudumbasree units.

This may have been a once-in-a-century flooding caused due to the coming together of various factors or it could also be a warning of things to come more frequently in the future due to climate change and poor land management. In either case, we ought to increase the resilience of our region for the safety, well-being and prosperity of our people. Now, is the right time for us to come together, to revamp and reinvent our future.

SPV FOR SMART CITY COCHIN: CONCERNS

Cochin is fifth in the first list of 20 Smart Cities and there is justifiable joy and euphoria around. The professional circles are abuzz with excitement. A slice of the action is what everyone wants!

Implementation is to happen through an Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). So, what is this SPV's form and mandate? Who are the players and what are their powers?

Modifying, Managing or Manipulating public realm is always a political process; an expression of political power that runs the place. In a democracy, it ought to reflect the true nature of the entire mass of the people.

In real life though, there is no singular mass called people. It is a celebration of their plurality! This is often, when viewed through the select eyes of a few, rather chaotic, unorganised and unkempt. The contest for the public realm thus, forever remains open.

The SPV is the new kid on the block. It would declutter the bureaucratic gridlock and wave its financial magic wand and create the city beautiful that “everyone” wants. Really? Okay, here's how: To quote from the SmartCity Guidelines of the MOUD:

The implementation of the Mission at the City level will be done by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) created for the purpose. The SPV will plan, appraise, approve, release funds, implement, manage, operate, monitor and evaluate the Smart City development projects. Each Smart City will have a SPV which will be headed by a full time CEO and have nominees of Central Government, State Government and ULB on its Board. The States/ULBs shall ensure that, (a) a dedicated and substantial revenue stream is made available to the SPV so as to make it selfsustainable and could evolve its own credit worthiness for raising additional resources from the market and (b) Government contribution for Smart City is used only to create infrastructure that has public benefit outcomes. The execution of projects may be done through joint ventures, subsidiaries, public-private partnership (PPP), turnkey contracts, etc. suitably dovetailed with revenue streams.

The SPV will be a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 at the city-level, in which the State/UT and the ULB will be the promoters having 50:50 equity shareholding. The private sector or financial institutions could be considered for taking equity stake in the SPV, provided the shareholding pattern of 50:50 of the State/UT and the ULB is maintained and the State/UT and the ULB together have majority shareholding and control of the SPV.

Funds provided by the Government of India in the Smart Cities Mission to the SPV will be in the form of tied grant and kept in a separate Grant Fund. These funds will be utilized only for the purposes for which the grants have been given and subject to the conditions laid down by the MoUD.

The State Government and the ULB will determine the paid up capital requirements of the SPV commensurate with the size of the project, commercial financing required and the financing modalities. To enable the building up of the equity base of the SPV and to enable ULBs to contribute their share of the equity capital, GoI grants will be permitted to be utilized as ULBs share of equity capital in the SPV, subject to the conditions given in Annexure 5. Initially, to ensure a minimum capital base for the SPV, the paid up capital of the SPV should be such that the ULB’s share is at least equal to Rs.100 crore with an option to increase it to the full amount of the first instalment of Funds provided by GoI (Rs.194 crore). With a matching equity contribution by State/ULB, the initial paid up capital of the SPV will thus be Rs. 200 crore (Rs. 100 crore of GoI contribution and Rs. 100 crore of State/UT share). Since the initial GoI contribution is Rs.194 crore, along with the matching contribution of the State Government, the initial paid up capital can go up to Rs.384 crore at the option of the SPV. The paid up capital may be enhanced in the subsequent years as per project requirements, with the provision mentioned above ensuring that ULB is enabled to match its shareholding in the SPV with that of the State/UT.

After selection of the cities in Stage II of the Challenge, the process of implementation will start with the setting up of the SPV. As already stated, it is proposed to give complete flexibility to the SPV to implement and manage the Smart City project and the State/ULB will undertake measures as detailed in Annexure 5 for this purpose. The SPV may appoint Project Management Consultants (PMC) for designing, developing, managing and implementing area-based projects. SPVs may take assistance from any of the empanelled consulting firms in the list prepared by MoUD and the handholding agencies. For procurement of goods and services, transparent and fair procedures as prescribed under the State/ULB financial rules may be followed. Model frameworks as developed by MoUD may also be used for Smart City projects.

And now the details, as mentioned in the said Annexure 5:

1. Structure of the SPV The City level SPV will be established as a Limited Company under the Companies Act, 2013 and will be promoted by the State/UT and the ULB jointly, both having 50:50 equity shareholding. This shareholding pattern has to be maintained at all times. The private sector or financial institutions could be considered for taking equity stake in the SPV, provided the State/UT and the ULB share are equal to each other, and the State/UT and ULB together have majority shareholding and control of the SPV (e.g. State/UT:ULB:Private sector shareholding can be in the ratio 40:40:20 or 30:30:40. Ratios such as 35:45:20 or 40:30:30 are not permitted since State/UT and ULB shares are not equal. Ratios such as 20:20:60 are also not permitted since the State/UT and the ULB together do not have majority shareholding). In addition to equity, the State/UT can provide its contribution to the Smart Cities Mission as grant to fulfil the State Government responsibility for ensuring availability of funds for the mission and for ensuring the financial sustainability of the SPV.
2. Raising and utilization of funds by the Company (SPV) The funds given by the Central Government to the SPV will be in the shape of tied grants and kept in a separate Grant Fund. These funds will be utilized only for the purposes given in the Mission Statement and Guidelines and subject to the conditions laid down by the Central Government. The ULBs may, through the State Government, request MoUD to permit utilization of GoI grants as ULB’s equity contribution to the SPV, subject to the following conditions: i. The State Government has made adequate contribution to the SPV out of their own funds. ii. The approval will be limited to the GoI grants that have already been released. Since future instalments of Smart City funds are subject to performance and are not guaranteed, the ULB will not be permitted to earmark future instalments to meet its equity contribution. iii. The utilization of GoI grants as equity contributions will not alter the relative shareholding of the State Government and the ULB, which will remain equal as per Mission guidelines. iv. It is clarified that the Government of India contribution to Smart Cities is strictly in the form of grant and the ULB is exercising its own discretion in utilizing these funds as its equity contribution to the SPV. The SPV will also access funds from other sources such as debt, user charges, taxes, surcharges, etc.
3. Board of Directors The Board of Directors will have representatives of Central Government, State Government, ULB and Independent Directors, in addition to the CEO and Functional Directors. Additional Directors (such as representative of parastatal) may be taken on the Board, as considered necessary. The Company and shareholders will voluntarily comply with the provision of the Companies Act 2013 with respect to induction of independent directors. Below, are given the broad terms of appointment and role of the SPV Board:-
   3.1 The Chairperson of the SPV will be the Divisional Commissioner/Collector/Municipal Commissioner/ Chief Executive of the Urban Development Authority as decided by the State Government.
   3.2 The representative of the Central Government will be a Director on the Board of the SPV and will be appointed by the MoUD.
   3.3 The CEO of the SPV will be appointed with the approval of the MoUD. The CEO will be appointed for a fixed term of three years and will be removed only with the prior approval of MoUD. The functions of the CEO include: a. Overseeing and managing the general conduct of the day-to-day operations of the SPV subject to the supervision and control of the Board. b. Entering into contracts or arrangements for and on behalf of the Company in all matters within the ordinary course of the Company’s business. c. To formulate and submit to the Board of Directors for approval a Human Resource Policy that will lay down procedures for creation of staff positions, qualifications of staff, recruitment procedures, compensation and termination procedures. d. Recruitment and removal of the senior management of the Company and the creation of new positions in accordance with the Company’s approved budget and the recruitment or increase of employees in accordance with the Human Resource Policy laid down by the Board. e. Supervising the work of all employees and managers of the Company and the determination of their duties, responsibilities and authority;
   3.4 The Independent Directors will be selected from the data bank(s) maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and preference will be given to those who have served as independent directors in the Board of Companies fulfilling Clause 49 of the listing agreement of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

In other words, the city shall be controlled directly by the Cenral govt.through a CEO who runs the City like a Company that is answerable to its shareholders. Of course, the State and ULB together are the majority shareholders on record. Has the citizen been appraised of such a primary shift in the modus operandi of Civic Governance?

Few thoughts on Pedestrian Movement (PM)

The idea is to conect the waterway system with the Metro System with an overlay of pedestrain movement. But, this PM has its own dynamics!

Contiguity: This is the key element. Also, this contiguos line needs to be spatially modulated on the scale of the activity too.

Activity centres generate pedestrians: They need to be distributed generously along the route and hence supply pedestrians to the foreseen network from multiple sources and at various times of the day/ night. Any weak linkages would break the contiguity and the network fails, simply because, segmented patches can't survive as wholesome pedestrian environments. The Metro terminal and the water transport terminals are two end point activity generators. Simply by linking them with paving, we do not get them to have pedesrian traffic flowing through. (Here, we are assuming that the same folks will fill the link simply for modal split.)

Posting these activity generators is an excercise that happens in the design management of the overall preceinct. So, unless we are working on the precinct we do not get the pedestrian network in place.

There are a couple of Legislative support mechanism that needs to be put in place for us to have any opportunity at creating “precinct management” or “urban design project making”. 1. Land Pooling/ Reconstitution Act and 2. Land Tribunal (for grievance redressal).

All our efforts hit a road block unless we have the Land Pooling/ Reconstitution Act. And when we need to exercise that Act, we would hit a worse nightmare unless there is the Land Tribunal!

PUBLIC PLACE ARCHITECTURE IN THE TROPICS

Thoughts on Tropical Urbanism

Most architects tend to see water as a vertical element from which to screen their work and also as to how to effectively use the screen as a design-delight. Relish it, for it is a tangible and basic reality which needs to be addressed boldly.

Water also begs to be seen as multiple and horizontal layers too, especially when viewed through the prism of Urbanism, as a form of geological sheet on which society has driven in its tent-pegs. We have settled on a sub-soil mesh of land and water, where the life giver is water. So, cities when planned or urban centres when redeveloped need to first recognize this under-lying system and the pattern of its organization.

Ecological Planning does address this concern at a very large scale. There are studies, for example, on the carrying capacity of the Vembanad Backwater system, from which to deduce the scale and extent of possible urban settlement. However, while we quantum leap down in scale from that regional level to the say, "campus plan" scale, the lines and relationships of water system do not inform the process of site planning beyond the extents of the "site" in the purview of the architect.

In other words, there exists a deep disconnect in addressing this primary issue at the intermediate scales that vary from above large architectural project sites,

• to large campuses like the Special Economic Zones or Techno-parks etc,
• to public-place-architecture like markets, mobility hubs etc,
• to city ward level redevelopment plans like Detailed Town Planning (DTP) Schemes (which are actually Urban Design or Urban Land Pooling/ Reconstitution Schemes),
• to city scale development agenda.

Of these, architects have a compelling role in at least the first two scales and the power to influence the remaining scales too. Each of these scales inform the nature and content of the ones above and below it.

In the realm of public-place-architecture, there is the need to create a value base, as a resource for the architect. The two year agenda set by this team needs to build such a referral base.

In rain-fed tropics, buildings need to stand apart to be climatically appropriate, but then, they also need to bridge distances in the extraneous spaces they tend to create between them, for healthier urban place-making. This pattern of conflicting energies, that both pull and push the distance between buildings, need to be tamed. The management of this duality of the need to come-together while going-apart is to be moulded by a more studied approach.

Improving walk-ability within our urban centres is a great challenge and in that regard, some topics that can be explored may include:

• Roof spans in timber for public walkways, and public forum (how to cover large areas using timber space-frames)
• Free public umbrellas
• Tree cover
• Stretched canvas (which can be hooked and unhooked as needed)
• Identifying the width of pedestrian pathways of various scale, when people use open umbrellas
• Architects have already invented some elements as tools of the trade; like the pergola with a sheet of glass over them. Serious refinement is possible through research.
• Clothes form our first layer and hence, appropriate clothing like knee-length formals

In the tropics, the focus needs to be on the roof and not the walls. This notion extends and permeates both architecture and public place design.