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.