DELHI- WE LOVE ORDER !

The case of New Delhi is interesting in that the urban design up to the British colonial power was purely organic and based on mainly two criterion: sustainability and security. There was limited political motive behind the urban design of cities right up to the early 20th century. The organic form of development which occurred till the British colonization is briefly discussed below with the main discussion on the 1911 Plan by Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker for New Delhi.

The Seven Cities
The grounds of Delhi were the laboratories of the first Mughal city planners who came to India. The Indian craftsmen were not familiar with Mughal architectural and planning practices. The predominant planning typology until that time had been influenced by Indian temple architecture. Kostof mentions a few examples of typical Indian Planning in his book “The City Shaped”.

The Mughal emperors made their first city in Delhi based on two basic planning/design principles: topography (for security and aesthetic purposes) and natural resources (water, soil type). New planning and urban design initiatives were combined with innovative architectural design. As the Indian craftsmen lacked the skills to construct the arch, which was not a part of Indian architecture, the first few landmark buildings of the Mughal Empire did not survive long.

Over a period of six centuries, the Mughals shifted their capital six times to locations with available natural resources, primarily water. All the cities were created on topographically suitable land, and were fortified with walls, thus the term “walled cities”. They introduced the concept of landscaped open spaces. Planning predominantly was a series of buildings set in beautiful landscaped gardens, connected by diagonal and straight streets.

The Walled City Today

The illustration is the plan for the walled city of Shahjahanabad, an area now called “Old Delhi”. Most of the architectural monuments are preserved, and some reused for commercial activities. The lack of emphasis on large open spaces and clustered urban design, which was an appropriate theme for that time (1600s), has led to manifold problems today. The people long for open space, safety, and healthy environs. Lutyens provided, although not consciously, the ideal space for these people, and millions others in the city.


What the Baroque Plan did…


Lutyens Plan was therefore one of the most significant urban design initiatives, with a strong political motive. It had links to the American Baroque in that, similar to Washington DC, Delhi’s plan is associated with centralized power. It has retained this baroque character even after the end of colonial rule because it provided the ideal physical expression of power to the central government.
The British created the baroque plan as a symbol of their absolute authority and power. As Kostof mentions in “The City Shaped”, “there is no mystery in its popularity on the colonial scene, as it functioned as an appropriate instrument of imperialism.” The intention was to completely control the urban experience of visitors. (Kostof, City Shaped, pg. 224)

The Plan of Delhi as it exists today is an urban space appreciated by the people for its straight axis, urban design, landscape and landmarks which lend a sense of order and cleanliness. This style (baroque) of urban order can also be seen in European capital cities. The Grand Manner is seen as early as the 14th century in Florence.
The Grand Manner was not the first urban design initiative in Delhi which thought of the street not as left over space between buildings, but as a spatial entity with its own identity. Throughout the various walled cities built in Delhi by the Mughals, there has always been an emphasis on axial streets, landscaped open spaces, vistas culminating at architectural landmarks such as places of worship or monuments. The scale however, is what makes Lutyens Plan different. It aspired to achieve a composition of urban spaces such that the experience of moving through the space itself would be a spectacle. (Kostof, City Shaped, pg 222)

Lutyens Baroque plan
The plan for New Delhi made in the first half of the 20th century does belong to a certain typology of city planning, but not entirely. Lutyens Plan for New Delhi evolved not from a simple interpretation of the Grand Manner such as Washington and Canberra, but rather from a careful and astute analysis of the existing urban/ rural network of that time. The Plan’s physical extents were determined by the territorial definition of the acquired villages. I have incorporated elements both from the chapter on the “Grand Manner” and “The City as Diagram” to describe Delhi.

L’Enfant’s design for Washington DC outlined the essential ingredients of Baroque urban design which Kostof discusses. There are similarities both in the concept and physical manifestation of this in the plan for New Delhi.

Lutyen’s Plan for Delhi is based on a grand, spacious urban design made up of landmarks/ focal points along an axis and also distributed in the city. These landmarks and focal pints are strategically placed based on the topography of the site to accentuate the grandeur and scale of design. There are direct and “swift, sweeping lines of communication”(Kostof, City Shaped) in the form of boulevards and grand vistas which connect these monuments. The public spaces created in this design are the stage for the monuments. These monuments become a part of the urban fabric, and in time, of the people themselves. The lawns of the Central Vista, known as Kings Way has lush green open space on either side of a central axis, which is the most active public space in the city.

Urban Form versus Urban Life
As I mentioned in my earlier paper, Lutyens plan has provided a much needed ‘breathing space’ in the city with a ‘zone of order’. One can feel and see the change as we approach the area. The grand open spaces, the architectural quality, the existence of order provide a relief for citizens who have learnt to adapt to ‘chaos’. The population density of the area is about sixty people per acre compared to several thousands in other parts of the city, In addition to this changed perception, the Plan also provides a much needed public amenity- open space.
These two factors make the area along King’s Way an extremely important public realm.

There are other public parks, but none with the attributes of Kings Way. Some of the reasons for this are:
• Strategic location
• Increased perception of safety
• The aesthetic quality of space
• Unobstructed open space and views
• The pride and feeling of being empowered.

Over a period of time, the city and its citizens have adapted the Plan to suit their needs. The urban order still exists and is respected. Below, I describe a few ways in which urban life has accommodated its needs to the urban form.

• The central axis, Kings’ Way which connects the Presidential Headquarters to the War Memorial (India Gate) and other landmarks is used for various public functions and demonstrations. From Protest marches to public parking for big events, the central vista has many uses. Be it school activities, open air art displays, music and dance concerts, the lawns of King’s Way are the preferred location.
• Located strategically, the Vista draws people from all parts of the city to an evening of recreation on the grand lawns. There are very few open spaces which integrate people within the city; the lawns of the Central Vista fill the void. The urban form in this way acts as an ideal stage for cultural interaction and enhancement. The first time I went to the Vista late one summer evening, there were thousands of people on the lawns, from all income and age groups, enjoying the coolth and vastness of the open space.
Source: Author
• The series of radial streets which surround the central vista connected originally to the institutional and administrative facilities and housing. Due to the explosive growth of the city, there is a much greater density of housing and commercial uses, which at times, utilize the physical space of the landmarks that the radial roads lead to.

Conclusions
A complex pattern consisting of numerous variables was proved to have determined the location, orientation, size of delhi’s successive cities. This view of the city as an organism was replaced by a simplistic colonial model in 1912. However, this shift as has been written in the paper was not sudden or absolute. Moreover, there have been various attempts before the British to create an urban design which signifies “peaceful domination”.

The case of Delhi shows that designs can be imported and adapted to new landscapes, but this does not hold true for planning. Planning strategies are unique to each cultural landscape. More often than not, the urban form morphs to the urban lifestyle. Although the Plan for Delhi seems to be a version of the Grand Manner, it exhibits new urban design but little new urban planning for the city.

Bibliography
1. Irving, Robert Grant. Indian Summer- Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi. London: Yale University Press, 1981
2. Kostof, Spiro. City Shaped, Thames and Hudson, 1991
3. Whiteland, J.W.R. (ed). The Urban Landscape, Academic Press, London, 1981
4. Mitra, Ashok. Delhi, Capital City, New Delhi: Thomson Press, 1970

Chandigarh versus Delhi

Delhi and Chandigarh- Contrasting Successes


Chandigarh is a pleasant surprise to most Indians, for whom the concept of grid planning is alien. They find it hard to believe that you can travel to another part of the city without making a turn or losing your way! The reason I chose to compare the city I researched, Delhi, to Chandigarh is that they are the two most prominent planning initiatives in India which originated elsewhere and seem to have been superimposed on the city’s fabric. Also, both the principal planners in Delhi and Chandigarh were aiming to achieve similar themes- Monumentality and ‘Get Control’ (Mumford 1967).

Delhi’s baroque plan is derived from topography and ancient trade routes based on extensive surveys and research done by Edwin Lutyens. The same cannot be said for Chandigarh, because a grid seldom respects topography or requires thorough research. However, the plan for Chandigarh is revered by its citizens and shown as an example of successful city planning in India, understandably so. It is because Chandigarh is arguably the country’s least congested city despite rapid growth, the parameter for success in India. Delhi by the same standards is a failure because of its inability to do so.

Chandigarh’s grid cuts through its topography and natural features in a very brutal fashion. Corbusier’s modernistic planning had no local context or content. He does make a few references to how he incorporated vernacular architecture and planning in his design. But the ground reality is very different. Even as a student of architecture who went to Chandigarh to study modern Indian architecture, a question came to my mind time and again- what is Indian about this? As in every other city in India, the people of Chandigarh have, to a certain degree adapted to the urban form.

Unlike Delhi, Chandigarh is made to look alien by its creators rather than fit into the urban fabric. The land seems to be a laboratory of architectural monuments. Raw concrete is the predominant texture of buildings, which is one of the memories that people leave with of Chandigarh- concrete buildings set in vast open concrete plazas. Was it Corbusier’s way of getting control? If it was, it definitely did work. The grid has for reasons I haven’t fully comprehended yet, influenced people’s public behavior. People drive safer (mostly), pedestrian networks are well maintained and utilized, public amenities such as public restrooms and bus stops are not vandalized. There might be other factors at play, but the difference is remarkable. It is perhaps a feeling of pride that makes the denizens treat the city as a personal possession. Delhi loses points in this regard and needs some loving.

Lutyens Delhi’s architecture and planning has a definite vernacular flavor, perhaps one of the reasons for it not drawing too much attention in the public eye. The Grand Manner plan for Delhi commands respect and does give a feeling of relief to people living in other parts of the city, but the radial road network created by Lutyens bears a vague resemblance to the way people are used to moving around- disoriented and disorderly. Chandigarh avoids this by the use of the grid. Chandigarh’s growth has been very simple to conceive and accommodate, typically the case in a new grid network. Adding of blocks to the existing grid is a no-brainer compared to dealing with the radial fabric of Delhi, where development means moving more and more away from the center and services. Infact, this is the case in every Indian city, In Chandigarh, there is no center.

Chandigarh is still a new city; therefore it might not be fair to compare it with Delhi. The grid does present a better technical solution for an ever-growing city, but does it provide a good planning solution? Not always.