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.

Toronto vs. Ann Arbor

I wrote this reflection paper while I was studying Urban Planning in Ann Arbor in 2004. I agree with these views for the most part, and would love to know yours.

As an International student from South Asia used to a certain density and vibrancy of the city, Toronto evoked both nostalgia and a feeling of deja vu.

My impression of North American cities had so far been limited to Ann Arbor, which to me still seems suburban. There is a lot of dialogue in the Urban Planning program about revitalizing cities, creating jobs, getting people to live downtown, walk to work, promoting local retail and promoting mixed use development. Toronto has all of this, and much more. It might not seem right to compare a city of 120,000 people to one with close to 4.3 million. However, Toronto scores over cities such as Ann Arbor not just because of its size but because there exists a symbiotic relationship between the built and the unbuilt. Unlike New York, where density and transit are a function of necessity, Toronto is truly urban by choice. At first, it seemed to have all the ingredients to become another Ann Arbor, suburban and fragmented. However, a conscious and proactive attempt to create a compact, yet diverse environment has manifested in a great city. Our interaction with the various groups, be it a neighborhood level non-profit community food center or a regional level group working for immigrants, brought out the fact that planning can be successful only when correct methodology is combined with community involvement. This was further emphasized by my visit to a world renowned private planning firm, where style and international clients seemed to govern planning that failed to accommodate any public well being. Sadly though, that’s where the money seems to be.

One of my most inspiring tours was that of the Historic Distillery District, Toronto's newest arts and entertainment cultural community. The weather was perfect as I setout to view one of the best historic preservation projects in North America. Historic preservation is as important as adaptive reuse. To see the combination of the two was extremely pleasing and informative. The Distillery's 44 buildings house more than 100 shops, including 22 retail stores, 21 art galleries, 6 restaurants and bakeries, a microbrewery, 3 performance venues, 33 ateliers, and 25 non-profit arts organizations. The numbers speak for themselves about the success and diversity of the District. The Distillery hosts celebrations and special events such as the Distillery Jazz Festival, dance, comedy, music fests, antique shows, vintage auto shows and outdoor exhibitions throughout the year. This ensures year round activity within the District. The Distillery District promoted: diversity in people, in terms of ethnicity and age groups. adaptive reuse of old historic buildings to innovative uses ( both exterior and interior).the film industry to exploit the natural settings.a diverse clientele the district attracted varying from tourists, to art connoisseurs, to young artists, to the casual resident. One of the questions which intrigued me was as to how the District has sustained for so long. Is it place marketing, is it the perennial funding from private and federal bodies, is it the attractiveness of the facility as a talent incubator, is it the strategic location, or is it the history associated with the District? After much reflection, I believe that it was a combination of all of the above. It is very difficult for any one factor to sustain a facility of this scale for so long.

One can argue that there are similar places around the world that do not get the attention or the acclaim the Distillery District commands. The reasons are multifarious and part of another discussion. One of these factors which I would like to briefly mention is the film industry. The film industry seems to be a major force behind the success of the distillery district. The richness of the Victorian industrial architecture combined with the variety of physical settings gives moviemakers the ‘naturalness’ that they are looking for. This in turn helps the district garner funds to maintain and promote other functions such as the art galleries and the artists’ studios. Having gained popularity in the commercial realm via the film industry, the District reaches out to the creative low-income class with its non-profit arts organizations. Therefore, in totality, it caters to the entire spectrum of the population. The District was not always a huge success. Even in its incipient stages as a distillery, it did encounter start-up problems which made it a daunting task for William Gooderham to continue the business. However, persistence and foresight saw him through that and made the facility the largest distilling firm in the country during the 19th century.

This is a big lesson for us planners. When we form an idea, it might not seem to fit in the immediate scheme of things. However, that should not act as a deterrent as the true value of a project could be realized over a period of time. NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) forces and start-up financial expenditures might make a project seem unfeasible, but when looked over a period of time, it might well be worth it. Long-range planning is very important to keep us focused on what we want to be or achieve in the future. Efforts such as the Distillery District serve as an excellent case study of revitalizing historic areas and putting them to useful purpose.
I learnt a lot through the tour about planning tools adopted to jump start the District and the means to keep it going through the years.