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.

KMBR revisions: what's in it for Cochin

KMBR has been revised!

Why:

The govt changed long back, but the real estate market refused to rise up in sentiment. There were far too many hurdles to be over come. How come despite the UDF in govt, the real estate market remains sluggish! That is an untenable idea.

For more buildings to come up, we need more virgin areas connected by better linkages/ roads. Somehow, this Peoples Planning idea wasn't "flexible" or easily worked from the top-down to easily facilitate new roads or liberate new lands where large buildings could be put up. A way around this was needed. (any way, no one has the patience to work the levers of this difficult mechanism and give power away from themselves at great effort!)

How:

The real way forward would be to bring in comprehensive development goals at the State level and give policy guidelines/ directions to local bodies to prepare details physical development plans. But, since we don't carry that kind of competence amongst us, and we need quick fix solutions, how do we sort out this?

Tinker with the KMBR, after-all, it is the KMBR that governs all "buildings" in Kerala! Plus, it is "mercifully" so un-connected with any specific location!

Result:

KMBR has been revised! Key revisions?

a. High rise has been redefined. You can now build basement+ ground + 4 floors (conditions apply: you need a smart architect to achieve all that, but legally, it is possible) and still be deemed as low rise building by staying under 16m building height and "building height" has been redefined for the purpose via the KMBR revisions.

 

b. The width of the approach road to your plot is the key to how much you can build and that has also been brought down to enable you to build more in smaller roads. (if you are unable to provide the mechanism to widen the roads to reasonable widths, then, simply allow more to be built as it is and then hope the pressure would demand/ deliver more road width at the mercy of the market forces!)

Side effect 1: 

Cochin is stuck else where! KMBR is over ridden by local development plans! Cochin's local development plan happens to be an aging document revived many time by direct government orders. So, Cochin doesn't immediately benefit from all this noise.

There are two ways this is likely to be sorted out.

1. The better way: To notify the Master Plan for KCR. This would be the legitimate way and the way in favour of better admn/ proceedure

This looks unlikely at the moment!

2. The most likely way: They (the Govt.) may pass a certain G.O again revising some aspects of the existing Structure Plan so as to accommodate in spirit, the recent liberties provided by the KMBR revisions. This would mean that temporarily, a window period is open for Cochin until a proper Master Plan is notified. That would mean no one would be sincere is getting a Master Plan in place as it would in any way be more restrictive than the liberties provided in the KMBR now!

I don't want to comment on the contents of the KMBR revisions, per se, but it is saddening that such administrative mechanism are employed for quick grievance redressal. This (modifying the KMBR) is certainly not the way to correct the ills of our urban issues. Cochin just happens to be caught in a warp in the process, which in itself isn't flowing smoothly.

Side effect 2:

One particularly notorious (conveniently idiotic, rather!) correction in the KMBR is to be mentioned here:

Item (31) on Page 12.

"In rule 109 B, in sub rule (3), 

(i) for the words "floor area", wherever occur, the words "coverage area" shall be substituted."

This actually means the RWH tank capacity for all buildings is hence forth related not to its total built up area but to its coverage foot print. The idea of RWH is to supplement the consumption of water by the building/ users. It is funny how it can be reduced to just its coverage area especially in the case of multi-storeyed buildings.

Thus moves on our charade of urban management!

Fixing Kerala Urban Planning's broken bones!

Whenever there is a discussion or workshop on urban planning issues, we realize that almost all the people in the know of things have a grasp of “what is” to be done! Invariably, if we dig deeper, this clarity vanishes. We notice huge gaps in the thinking, or sheer fallacy of the ideas extolled so elaborately, and huge stories purposefully left untold.

New items and stumbling blocks crop up in the discussions, 'malayali psyche', 'our general attitude', 'political will', our resistance to tolls, our opposition to environmental exploitation, 'our consumer culture' etc. Most of them are very intangible.

Soon, all those who are concerned about the matter just for that event or that day would go on with their lives from there on. Some others leave with a sense of dejection. The planning department must carry on and do what is possible under the given difficult conditions.

Our cities are hungry for change, but frankly, no one knows how that is to happen!

There are various ways the arguments for a better city can be cited. Let us not presume a physical solution to start with. Let the physicality emerge from true and authentic forces of peoples will and desire. By 'True forces', I mean, a cumulative packaging of the desire of the Entire people. A process that is reflective of the democratic society and embedded within the Law of the land.

On closer study, it seems that certain law making needs to be done to support a genuine process of decision making which can be termed effective urban management. The invisible thread that bind us all together is the law of the land.

What are the basic premises required to bring about any cohesive, comprehensive, visionary physical change to the existing city?

1. Setting the development agenda democratically
2. Fixing responsibility of making the Urban Area Development Plan.
3. Creating a mechanism to seek quality technical (physical and financial) solutions/inputs regarding city design
4. Strategize the method to convert private land to public use with minimal conflict
5. Enabling a legally embedded, yet, quick grievance redressal system
6. Co-ordination of implementation

We have serious lacunae in each of these spheres and I could explain why we need the support of better law-making to enable each of these. Our cities are still livable simply because such urban issues have only recently started creating small temporary nuisances, and also because the underlying older pattern of urban design (unintended though!) was very very accommodative to stress

1. Setting the development agenda democratically:

Without this, nothing holds water in our democratic society. Yet, we have no system to collect the will of the people on such a crucial matter. The current system is that once a Development Plan is prepared, it shall be put up in the public domain for people to comment on for a certain duration, two months. So, the role of the civil society is limited to responding to a certain design option. Mostly such comments would be from persons who are immediately affected by some serious trouble like their land being marked as a public park! (This could be worse thing to happen to a citizen who happened to fall under the green pen of the planner.) Such comments are heard and sometimes responded to too.

However, that is still far cry from being able to set our own development agenda as a citizenry. Electing our local councilor is the nearest we are at the moment to this role and that narrative is clouded by a million other political maneuvers. 

One drastic revision needed here is that, the aspirations of the stakeholders have to be collected prior to the preparation of the design solution. There are many ways and examples of how this can be done. Individuals, associations, institutions, political parties etc should be able to respond to various tailor-made stimuli. This process has to rest within our legal rights. Law making exercise number 1. This exercise should end in the preparation of a detailed development agenda that is at once a conceptual vision document, as well as a detailed design brief for an agency or group of agencies that is to provide the next stage of the exercise. This Vision Document must be published and whetted by the responsible agency.

 

2. Fixing responsibility of making the Urban Area Development Plan:

Delineation of the extent of an urban area is critical task. Ecological, Demographic and Administrative concerns should be the primary basis on which this is done. As multiple Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) would be covered together, Joint Town Planning Committees would have to be set-up to monitor the same. Kochi City Region has done this and can be used a precedent or template for future use. In case of larger agglomerations, Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) would have to be put in place. This is what is still missing in the case of Kochi City Region. Case for law-making 2. 

However, political energies are focused on revival of Development Authorities, something that is totally unconstitutional in the aftermath of the 73^rd and 74^th Amendments to the Constitution. Setting up of the processes and institutions required for good governance is the first step forward. In a mad rush to show dramatic short term results, no government should scuttle the overall intend of the decentralization in civic governance.

So, our vision document is to be initiated by this MPC. Let us see who they are and how they would deliver a city of promise.

3. Creating a mechanism to seek quality technical (physical and financial) solutions/inputs regarding city design

The Metropolitan Commisioner (CEO) for the MPC who reports to the LSGD Minister and the Chief Minister directly, would be an IAS officer and would head four teams; Planning, Engineering, Finance and Administration. Planning, is to be headed by a Chief Planner. This is the script already in place and awaiting implementation.

But, then, where would technical help come in from? Quality technical input would be needed. How does this team hire an external consultant? Or would they do all the tasks in-house? Using a building construction simile, will land up with PWD type government buildings as against the possibility of great design solutions from architects?

What we are seeking is quality urban design inputs and for that the system must be able to hire quality professional inputs in a manner befitting the urgency and loftiness of the purpose. The town planning department has a central role in the process. I would strongly advocate that the TPD adopt a collaborative work culture in such cases. Multiple agencies and competencies are required to accomplish a task of such magnitude. It is imperative that terms and mechanisms of engagement with various professional agencies by the Town planning Department be put in place. Case for law making number 3.

 

The vision to such a strategy should be initiated by the CEO of the MPC. If such inputs are not taken, the Plans prepared would be very much the same old land-use plans which recommend what uses cannot happen in a certain place. A lot of new roads drawn in wide sweeping lines taking fancy titles like ring, radial and concentric and what not. A huge backlog of proposed Town Planning Schemes (DTPS) would be created. Tired Town Planners would be asked to work like horses doing both DTP schemes as well as clearing individual building permits and scrutinizing building set-backs!

Professional input can bring about many changes in the methodology, the end product, the nature of the development Plans, add built-in flexibility, use more personnel to deliver the whole task as a single purpose, use different software for input, feedback, analysis, constant up-gradation, better projectisation and dove-tailing with financial systems. etc. Our cities deserve such a break.

This is the crux of the argument for better cities.

 4. Strategize the method to convert private land to public use with minimal conflict:

Any development Plan in Kerala would run into the issue of taking over private land for public purpose. A lot of this cumbersome and hurtful process is done using the draconian Land Acquisition Act which in effect means, taking land away forcefully using the might of the Law. Even as we accept that LA is inevitable in some context and that, that issue is being addressed by the Central Government through legislative reforms in that particular Act itself, let us not deny that for effective urban land release and assemblage, we have better tools like TDR, Accommodation reservation etc.

To get TDR to function effectively, some supporting conditions are also needed to be put up. Land Pooling Act or Land Reconstitution Act is enabled in some States like Gujarat since 1947. This enables a system which makes the process of land reassembly happen in a transparent and legal manner while permitting active and profitable benefits to the participants in it. How well this system works also depends on how aware and demanding the public is and also how transparent the actual conduct of the process is! But, having this Act in place is crucial, the Land Pooling Act! Law making task number 4.

Just putting the Act in place doesn't ensure speedy assembling of land. There are many disputes and conflicts and they too are to be addressed in a democratic society if issues are to be sorted out reasonably fast.

5. Enabling a legally embedded, yet, quick grievance redressal system

Grievance redressal in urban land issues is done by the Land Tribunal in Gujarat again. Setting up a legal redressal system like the Land Tribunal for fast-tracking of land related disputes would ease the task and pressure on Metropolitan Commissioner's office. Law making task number 5.

One can very well imagine the potential for chaos and agitation in that office premise after any project plan is unveiled in case no genuine legal mechanism specific to the task is in place. People would rush to civil courts and there could be a stay on each and every project. Urban projects can't work in piece-meal packages and would need wholesome approval for all ends to tie up together.

 6. Co-ordination of implementation

Compared to most of the earlier tasks that appear formidable, I would say that all the five earlier hurdles were the easier ones when compared to this one. Everyone knows this simple message, yet, how come none has been able to ensure that urban management be unified in purpose?

We don't start urban management one fine day, that's why!

There are existing systems and entrenched traits that run this cumbersome job. No one wants to feel less important the next day. Yet, co-ordination is a need.

Unified Transport Authority is being discussed as being mandated by the Central Government for Metropolitan regions. Even when that is achieved, we have only unified the transportation aspects within itself! Transportation will then have to be unified with all other systems! No one is sure what those systems are in first place.

A lot of it would ride on what the design goal is for each sub-project and a method/ institutional mechanism for delivery of design goals would have to be put in place. This task for the Metropolitan Commissioner to unravel.