Mega-city-oriented urban development is in question due to declining living conditions, the ongoing environmental crisis, and challenges of affordability and mobility. The concern is that policies still focus on the growth of large cities because of the metro-centric economy. Developing medium and small cities as an alternative model of urbanization has gained traction. This is not a new idea. About 35 years ago, the National Commission on Urbanization (NCU) advised to move away from metro dependence and support small and medium-sized cities. However, this model is not completely finished.
A view of the Outer Ring Road in Hyderabad, near Kokapet and the twin reservoirs. | Photo credit: Nagara Gopal
In this interview, Vidyadhar Phatak, NCU member, former Chief Planner of Mumbai Metropolitan Area Development Authority, and author Planning for the Urbanization of IndiaDiscuss the feasibility of alternative models and whether limiting large cities helps.
A vehicle is stuck in a traffic jam on Hosur road, in Bengaluru. | Photo Credit: PTI
Traffic accidents in Bengaluru, air pollution in Delhi, Mumbai’s prices, and ongoing urban flooding have raised concerns about big cities. Is it time to rethink the orientation of mega cities and look at achievements in more balanced urban development?
Experience to date has shown that urban size and distribution are dynamic; controlling him will be difficult. After independence, India realized that urbanization was inevitable. Policy makers feel that we should avoid big cities in such situations. However, the attempt to obtain the optimal city size distribution, that is, the number of large, medium, and small cities needed, is more theoretical. No one can establish a policy to achieve it. Large cities provide important agglomeration benefits for innovation. Even small and medium enterprises can develop only in the context of big cities. That said, growth in other urban centers is also critical.
Mumbai skyline | Photo Credit: Getty Images / iStock
Two things can happen. One economic transformation will affect the size of the city. For example, old economic activities, such as the textile industry in Mumbai or Ahmedabad, will die or move away from the big cities. Although financial activities can be filled, these changes will affect the size of the city. Furthermore, the problem of migration, which mainly creates an anti-big-city image, is getting worse over time due to the decrease in demographic growth.
Second, large cities become polycentric. Before, everything was concentrated in one center, but that has changed. For example, the Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai, and Thane, have emerged as additional hubs in Mumbai. If public transport can be connected, it will solve some of the problems of big cities.
Street view of business district in Mumbai. | Photo Credit: Getty Images/istock
Even as early as 1988, the NCU advocated decentralized growth and a shift from high-rise development to low-rise development. Is this model still relevant? Or does the fact that it is not completely finished indicate a limitation?
NCU takes a balanced approach. While recommending 329 growth centers, as well as prioritizing cities of national importance, important for the national economy. The recommendation to direct growth towards small and medium cities may not have been fully realized, but the idea continues in schemes such as JNNURM, Smart Cities, and AMRUT. In addition, plans to support 12 cities in industrial corridors such as the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor are underway.
Concrete sleepers are being piled for the construction of the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor. | Photo Credit: Vivek Tripathi
Regarding the low high density, the aim is to enable additional housing. Many people think that they cannot raise the capital to build a complete house but they can do it gradually. However, this can only be done on publicly owned land. You can not force low-rise on private land.
What can be achieved is to increase the supply of service land in periurban areas through the expansion of infrastructure. With more land to build on, people may opt for high-rise homes, even on private land. This did not happen. Currently, the government emphasizes the development of the suburbs through a land assembly approach.
The NCU operated in the pre-liberalization era, and only three years after the report, the economy had been liberalized. This very challenging NCU approach, however, can be reconsidered and not abandoned.
Alternative development models direct urban growth to predetermined locations through strict state intervention. This works against market forces that favor big cities. Can such an approach work when private sector involvement in urban growth is central?
Before liberalization, we used to think that urban planning should decide which sectors and where to invest. Now, that has changed. To a greater extent, the market decides which sector and place to invest in. Guidelines for environmental protection exist, but directing the spatial distribution of economic activity has stopped, and hence, the pattern of urbanization cannot be predetermined.
Limiting provisions in the market through planning will no longer work. If we want to distribute growth, we must create market conditions in cities for investment instead of pushing it. We must focus, especially through physical planning, on providing public services and ensuring that land is available for public use.
Planners haven’t stopped limiting urban growth, have they? Previously, it wrapped a green belt to block the city; now, through the height limit and lower FSI, determine how much you can build on the plot. Has this helped?
Constraints focus on the supply side. The argument is that if you limit the provision of development rights and do not provide enough land, the demand will be controlled. That’s not how it works. Demand for built-up areas continues to grow with economic growth. As we tighten supply, prices rise, which affects affordability. They even drove out some economic activities. Mumbai loses out in IT as investors think Hyderabad is a better place. Planners cannot forget the impact of restrictions on the market.
A view from the Kokapet Financial District in Hyderabad. | Photo Credit: Getty Images/istock
Concerns about climate change have been at the center of planning. Balancing economic growth with long-term sustenance has become important. What is the way forward?
Planning should focus on sustainability, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and other related measures. This is not just for big cities; the entire city center needs this treatment. We cannot continue the big city vs small city debate in the narrow sense. Big cities play a role in promoting economic growth. At the same time, small towns can support rural relations and the agricultural economy. The disparity of infrastructure services among them is the main problem that needs to be solved. The point is that a large urban agglomeration is here, and it is necessary to grow other urban centers.
The author is a professor at CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
Published – 22 November 2024 17:02 IST
