Paper presented -
“Peri-Urban Interface in the context of Globalisation - A Review of the Planning Process of Delhi” International Federation of Housing and Planning, 51st World Congress – ‘Futures of Cities’, Copenhagen, Denmark, 23-26th September,2007
Introduction
According to a United Nations study (UN: 2003) with a population in excess of fifteen million, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, is one of the ten largest urban agglomerations in the world. It is also one of the fastest growing.
Table 1: Ten largest Urban Agglomerations of the world in 2005
|
Rank
|
1975
|
Population in million
|
Rank
|
2005
|
Population in million
|
|
1
|
Tokyo, Japan
|
26.6
|
1
|
Tokyo, Japan
|
35.3
|
|
2
|
New York – Newark, USA
|
15.9
|
2
|
Mexico City, Mexico
|
19.0
|
|
3
|
Shanghai, China
|
11.4
|
3
|
New York – Newark, USA
|
18.5
|
|
4
|
Mexico City, Mexico
|
10.7
|
4
|
Mumbai, India
|
18.3
|
|
5
|
Osaka – Kobe, Japan
|
9.8
|
5
|
Sao Paolo, Brazil
|
18.3
|
|
6
|
Sao Paolo, Brazil
|
9.6
|
6
|
Delhi, India
|
15.3
|
|
7
|
Buenos Aires, Argentina
|
9.1
|
7
|
Calcutta, India
|
14.3
|
|
8
|
Los Angeles – Long Beach- Santa Ana, USA
|
8.9
|
8
|
Buenos Aires, Argentina
|
13.2
|
|
9
|
Paris, France
|
8.6
|
9
|
Jakarta, Indonesia
|
13.2
|
|
10
|
Beijing, China
|
8.5
|
10
|
Shanghai, China
|
12.7
|
Source: United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 revision
During the Census Period 1991-2001 Delhi urban agglomeration had registered the highest rate of demographic growth amongst the Indian metropolises. There are several complex and paradoxical features associated with the emerging urban development pattern of Delhi, as national and the urban economy is going through phase of rapid transition.
Table 2: Population growth rate of India's largest cities
|
City
|
Urban Agglomeration Growth Rate
|
City Proper Growth Rate
|
|
1981-1991
|
1991-2001
|
1981-1991
|
1991-2001
|
|
Mumbai
|
33.7
|
29.9
|
20.4
|
20.0
|
|
Calcutta
|
19.9
|
19.9
|
6.6
|
4.1
|
|
Delhi
|
46.9
|
51.9
|
43.2
|
36.2
|
|
Chennai
|
26.4
|
18.5
|
28.9
|
9.7
|
|
Bangalore
|
41.3
|
37.8
|
7.4
|
61.3
|
|
Hyderabad
|
66.5
|
27.4
|
39.2
|
12.8
|
Source: Census of India: 1991, 2001
The process of national level economic reforms and globalization started in the mid 80s, but really picked up speed since 1991. Since then, the economy had been on an upswing, mainly due to growth in service sector – Information Technology and other IT Enabled Services (ITES) - including Call Centres and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) – in engineering, legal, financial and medical fields. The contribution of urban centres to the national GDP increased steadily from 29 percent in 1951 to 47 percent in 1991 to 62% in 2006.
Delhi, along with its satellite towns, Gurgaon and NOIDA is the leading location for the ITES segment (Refer Figure-3) and has seen consistently vibrant economic growth over the last two decades. During the 2005-06 the GDP growth was 12.6% (Economic Survey 2005-06). During the Census Period 1991-2001, over 1.6 million people migrated to Delhi – influenced by a combination of pull and push factors.
Table 3: Concentration of ITES Companies
|
Rank
|
City
|
No. of Companies
|
|
1
|
Delhi NCR Area
|
74
|
|
2
|
Chennai
|
70
|
|
3
|
Mumbai
|
41
|
|
4
|
Bangalore
|
26
|
|
5
|
Calcutta
|
9
|
|
6
|
Hyderabad
|
8
|
|
7
|
Pune
|
6
|
|
8
|
Ahmadabad
|
4
|
|
9
|
Others
|
24
|
Source: NASSCOM’s Handbook on ITES-BPO Industry, 2002
Despite growth in agricultural productivity, employment generation in the farm sector had reached saturation. Rural economy as a whole, continue to languish in poverty and under employment - particularly amongst the poor and landless labourers – who in turn migrate to urban areas for better economic opportunity.
Almost every individual who migrated to Delhi, irrespective of education, income and social status, did so with a dream for a better future. Delhi was perceived as a land of opportunity – for the poor and non-poor alike. However, imperfections in the urban housing and employment market, thereafter leaves the migrant with very little opportunity in the formal sector.
Various studies on Delhi had indicated that more than 65% of the migrant population take up shelter in slum areas and are involved in informal economic activity, which include petty trade, domestic works, small manufacturing and construction (Dhar Chakroborty, 2001, p.9). Availability of cheap labour, in turn, encourages small traders and entrepreneurs to set up commercial and manufacturing facilities in slum neighbourhoods.
The slum settlements and informal industrial sectors in Delhi are often located over land belonging to the ‘urban villages’ – the rural habitats, which gets engulfed due to the very fast spatial expansion of the city, taking advantage of their special status enclaves with minimum land use control. This phenomenon had led to the emergence of a complex pattern of urban form in Delhi, in which - the ‘illegal’ and the ‘informal’ city had developed an intricate and organic relationship with the ‘legal’ and the ‘formal’ city.
Development and growth of unauthorised settlements in peri-urban areas, is a widespread phenomenon in India and other developing cities. Yet in Delhi, the growth process had taken place in a unique urban planning context (Dupont 2005, p.313). As a result, common peri-urban characteristics, visible in fringe areas of other Indian cities, are visible, even in core areas of Delhi.
The Spatial Pattern of Growth
The economic growth of Delhi and consequent, population and spatial growth is not happening in isolation, but rather along with growth in the larger National Capital Region (NCR) - comprising of Delhi and its satellite towns – Gurgaon and Faridabad in the state of Haryana; NOIDA, Greater NOIDA and Gaziabad in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP).
The National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB) was established in 1985 to ensure balanced regional development by encouraging alternative urban growth centres as counter magnates to Delhi and reduce the burden of growth of Delhi.
Gurgaon, NOIDA, and Gaziabad started gowning as attractive suburban residential destination for the middle class in the 1980s. However, ever since the IT / ITES sector started booming in the 1990s, Gurgaon and NOIDA had often over taken Delhi as favoured business and residential destination of the new economy.
IT and ITES sector’s preference for urban peripheral locations are due to quality and cost effectiveness of the real estate. The success of their business models revolve around trained manpower, infrastructure availability and low rental outgo. The developments in suburban and peripheral locations have successfully catered to all these demands, which the older buildings in the older business areas are unable to fulfil.
Illustration 1: Growth Areas in the National Capital Region
Growth Areas within Delhi
|
Growth Area in NCR towns bordering Delhi
|
Source: City Development Plan - Delhi
In Delhi NCR Area the suburban business districts of Gurgaon and NOIDA have benefited the most at the expense of the traditional British era, central business district, the Connaught Place or the subsequently developments like the Nehru Place, Bhikaji Cama Place or Rajendra Place, which came up in the 1970s and 80s.
Large corporate real estate developers like DLF and Unitech, took advantage of this situation and came up with top grade office complexes and IT Parks in Gurgaon offering the following benefits –
a. Quality infrastructure support including central air-conditioning and power back up
b. Availability of large floor plates to provide for rapid scalability
c. Greater efficiency of work spaces
d. Availability of support services to cater to 24/7 operations
e. Ample parking and transport logistics
IT Parks are based on a telecommunication paradigm, for their economic activity – as they are offshore locations for foreign companies or are Indian companies servicing remote clients through telecom network (Leclerc 2005, p.65) and . Most of these developments are in the nature of self sufficient enclosed complexes containing high-end offices, hospitals, schools, shopping malls and high income residential buildings – in NCR Towns like Gurgaon and NOIDA.
Two other NCR towns Gaziabad and Faridabad are emerging as high income residential areas, along with self contained sub-cities within Delhi, like Dwarka and Rohini.
As per the projections of the National Capital Region Planning Board, population of Delhi will be in the range of 22 to 23 million by the year 2021. Along with this, there shall be 5 Metro Centres, each having more than 1 million population – Guragon-Manesar, Gaziabad-Loni, Sonepat-Kundli, Faridabad-Ballabhgarh and NOIDA. Rapid spatial expansion of Delhi had blurred the city limits as Delhi-Gurgaon-NOIDA-Greater NOIDA-Faridabad-Gaziabad had emerged as a megalopolis.
The National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) covers 1,483 sq. km of land area and is divided in nine districts. Over the years, the settlement pattern shows that while peripheral areas like North-West or South-West districts had registered over 60% growth rate, the core areas like New Delhi or Central, had seen growth had stabilised or even declined.
Table 4: Distribution of Population Growth in Delhi Area (1991 to 2001)
|
District
|
2001
|
1991
|
Decadal Growth
|
|
Population
|
% of total
|
Population
|
% of total
|
|
North-West
|
2,860,869
|
20.65
|
1,777,968
|
18.87
|
60.91%
|
|
South
|
2,267,023
|
16.37
|
1,501,881
|
15.94
|
50.95%
|
|
West
|
2,128, 908
|
15.37
|
1,433,038
|
15.21
|
48.56%
|
|
North-East
|
1,768,061
|
12.77
|
1,085,250
|
11.52
|
62.92%
|
|
South-West
|
1,755,041
|
12.67
|
1,087,573
|
11.55
|
61.37%
|
|
East
|
1,463,583
|
10.57
|
1,023,078
|
10.86
|
43.06%
|
|
North
|
781,525
|
5.64
|
686,654
|
7.29
|
13.82%
|
|
Central
|
646,385
|
4.67
|
656.533
|
6.97
|
-1.55%
|
|
New Delhi
|
179,122
|
1.29
|
168,669
|
1.79
|
6.19%
|
|
Total
|
13,850,507
|
100
|
9,420,644
|
100
|
47.02%
|
Source: Economic Survey of Delhi 2005-06
Note: The population of nine districts for 1991 is derived by recasting the Census data of 1991 Census according to the present jurisdiction of the districts.
Along with the growth in population, the urban limits of Delhi had also steadily increased, by acquisition of agricultural and pastoral land from the surrounding rural areas. In 1971 urban area was 446 km2, (30% of total NCTD area) which increased to 701.62 km2 (47.3% of the NCTD area) by 1999. This is further proposed to increase to 977.91 km2 by 2021 (66% of total area). The urbanisation process had engulfed 135 village communities having a population of about nine hundred thousand (Economic Survey 2005-06).
planning process
The need for planned development of the national capital was realised in the 1950s, as sudden influx of millions of refugees[1] from Pakistan, in the wake of partition and independence in 1947, had led to haphazard urban growth.
Delhi Development Authority was created in 1957 and was entrusted with the charge of the preparation of the Master Plan. It was also made the sole custodian and developer of land acquired for urbanisation within the National Capital Territory of Delhi – thereby creating a public sector monopoly in land acquisition and supply (Dupont 2005, p.314). Starting from 1961, DDA had prepared three successive Master Plans, with 20 year plan horizon. The first Master Plan (MPD 1981) was prepared in consultation with the Ford Foundation and was launched in 1962. The second Master Plan (MPD 2001) was formulated 20 years later in 1981, but was put on hold in the advent of the Asian Games in the city1982, and was finally launched only in 1991. The Master Plans are statutory or legally enforceable documents.
Planning in Delhi had traditionally been a top down, bureaucratic exercise with little scope for public participation. Prepared in isolation of the economic and political realities, the Master Plans had been beset with problems.
The Master Plans failed to comprehend the implications of economic liberalisation, globalisation and growth of informal sector. They did anticipate the growth of the city, but what they did not, was the economic factors which influenced the growth and therefore the nature and composition of growth, its implications for the cityscape in terms of housing, productivity, infrastructure and harmonizing the relationship of growth. The growth of the IT/ITES segment, rising demand for vehicles, commercial growth and informal economy– the issues which shaped Delhi in 1990s, were completely bypassed (Chatterji 2003, p.16).As a result, the Master Plan projections for housing, commercial or industrial facilities were grossly inadequate.
The situation got further worsened, as plan implementation failures – which led to construction of just about one-third of commercial complexes as planned (Yadav 2006) and inherent corruption in the civic agencies led to widespread illegal constructions and encroachments of public land. The encroachments largely happened on the vast tracts of land acquired by the DDA and then left unutilised. Dupont (2005, p.316) traced growth of unplanned and illegal settlements as an unintended consequence of elitist and exclusivist urbanism practiced by the DDA’s planning process.
Worsening urban environmental conditions ultimately led to interventions by the Supreme Court. The Court ordered in 2000, demolition of unauthorised constructions and strict enforcement of the Master Plans. However by then, being divorced from ground realities, the MPD 2001 had largely became irrelevant (Chatterji 2000, p.10)
Meanwhile, the Court orders regarding sealing and demolition led to conflict with the political executive, which favoured a policy of general amnesty and regularisation of the unauthorised constructions. The conflict between the Judiciary and the political executive plunged Delhi into an unprecedented urban crisis during 2005-06 – leading to series of agitations and strikes by the traders.
The third Master Plan (MPD-2021) was prepared under these circumstances. The first draft was prepared in 2005 and quickly ran into various controversies. It was again redrafted with vastly relaxed guidelines and was notified in February 2007. The revised MPD-2021 acknowledged previous plan problems and advocated for allowing mixed land use and commercial activities in regularised and resettlement colonies along with 110 urban villages. MPD-2021 also proposed development of more location specific Zonal Development Plans, public participation in planning and integration of informal economic activities in the planning process. The issue of Court monitoring of sealing of illegal construction and implementation of the Plan is still going on.
URBAN VILLAGES IN THE PLANNING PROCESS
The growth of Delhi had taken place mainly through spatial expansion, rather than densification (Hust 2005, p.21). Systematic acquisition of agricultural land began with the first Master Plan. The urbanisation process had acquired the vacant agricultural land for urban usage, whereas the residential and other community land was left virtually intact. These villages were designated as ‘urban villages.’
While it is easy to distinguish a rural from urban settlements, it is rather difficult to differentiate between an urbanizing village and an ‘urban village’.
An urbanizing village reflects the natural process of transformation of a human settlement from one economic order to another and one way of life to another. Thus socio economic and morphological changes taking place in natural bring about attitudinal as well as socio-cultural changes gradually and naturally.
An ‘urban village’ of Delhi, on the other hand, represents a process in which a rural settlement is caught in a process of rapid urbanization of a metropolis (Mehra 2000, p.282). Thus while such a settlement suddenly looses the source of its livelihood, it has to adjust to new types of economic activity it has not hitherto been familiar with.
The crux of the First Master Plan recommendation was to identify ‘community interest areas’ based on socio economic considerations after delineating village areas in rural Delhi The method adopted in delaminating the ‘community interest areas’ was to recognise the important centres of rural activity and determine their sphere of influence. The planners were of the opinion that with suitable modifications ‘community interest areas’ could be adopted as planning areas for the ‘urban villages’.
The ‘urban village’ lands were classified as ‘Lal dora’, in the context of the Master Plans. Lal dora - literally a red chord, is an imaginary boundary line, usually a road that separates the village abadi (inhabitation) from the urban neighbourhood. Land use in the village abadi within the ‘Lal dora’ ware as strictly residential. According to the 1963 Notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, building bylaws within the “Lal dora’ area are more relaxed. The intent of the policy was to keep residential land within affordable limits of the original village inhabitants and also to stimulate rural industry (Bentinck 2001).
Illustration 2::
Divided City – Planned development of middle class housing at Dwarka on the right side of the road. The left side of the road shows commercialization of Lal dora area at Madhu Vihar– partially demolished under Court order.
However the reality, that emerged, was rather different. The rural character of the villages in terms of land use pattern and occupational structure have undergone drastic changes – as The ‘urban villages’ of Delhi have become urbanized in haphazard and unplanned manner, often leading to severe environmental degradation - due to a complex combination of forces, which are discussed bellow.
transformation of the urban villages
Sustained economic growth along with rising urban population of Delhi has put extreme pressure on land supply, for housing as well as small scale trade, industry and services.
In this scenario, the ‘urban villages’ in the city have come to play an important role in the provision of informal land supply. This land is highly sought after by small urban entrepreneurs who run the type of industries not permitted elsewhere or can not afford the high cost or want to avoid tax.
Land use in the ‘urban villages’ located near industrial areas turn into a mix of small scale manufacturing and slum type residence for the labour population. None of the factories are registered. Most employ typically 5 to 15 workers and manufacture low cost products – furniture, door window grills, electrical spare parts, automobile repair shops, plastic cases and bags. Effluent treatment or drainage is practically non existent. Water supply is often sourced by illegally tapping into municipal service mains or boring for ground water. These industrialized areas are found in Shalimar village, Mundka, Nawada, Dabri etc.
Illustration 3:
Industrialized ‘urban village’ in Dabri has turned into a slum
Areas located in close proximity to middle or upper income residential areas had turned into commercial areas with large shops for clothes, furniture and building materials, big show room for electronic goods, beauty parlours or computer training institutes or medical clinics.
In new sub-cities like Dwarka or Rohini, the planned commercial complexes often came up much after the construction of housing societies and are exorbitantly priced. The shop sizes are very small inappropriate in design to meet the demands of changing lifestyle. Therefore large showrooms for electronic goods, automobiles, departmental stores often tend to locate in ‘urban villages’. As the formal markets do not have space for unorganized sectors like fruits and vegetable sellers, weekly markets on rotational basis, had come up to meet the demand.
The original inhabitants of the villages were agriculturists or dairy farmers. As Hust (2005) explains, the ‘urban villages’ were integrated - without developing an economic, social or spatial policy to help the villagers transform from rural to urban lifestyle. The villagers were often left without any alternative livelihood. The growing economy and space crunch came as an opportunity. The original population of the villages earned huge profit from land transactions (Deswal 2007, p.1) and found opportunity to build in and around their villages, taking advantage of ‘lal dora’ status.
Some of the urban villages are repositories of heritage of many earlier cities of Delhi – vernacular architecture, historic monuments and cultural traditions sometime dating back to 900 years. Historic urban villages with their distinctive settlement pattern, range of traditional residential typologies and havelis (big residential buildings) and heritage resources such as the vibrant religious and cultural complexes in Nizamuddin, Chiragh Delhi, Mehrauli, Adchini are threatened today by over densification, rampant commercialisation, uncontrolled and inappropriate construction.
Illustration 4:
Jahaz Mahal – 16th Century Lodhi Dynasty palace threatened by growing commercialization in Mehrauli
In a few pockets, historic urban villages have become gentrified and become attractive location for trendy restaurants and boutique shops. The historic setting adds to the attractiveness - particularly for the tourists. Some of the famous fashion or furniture designers had opened their retail outlets in the village areas of Houz Khas, overlooking the 13th Century Tughlaq dynasty monuments.
Similarly, Mehrauli – which includes the Qutab Minar and associated monuments, is one of the most famous tourist destinations. It is also located in close proximity to several posh areas of South Delhi and the upcoming Gurgaon. As a result, a large number of fashion designers, expensive furniture shops and restaurants had come up along the Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road. The Court orders to demolish illegal construction, had led demolition of certain iconic buildings on this area.
Fringe areas in Third World cities typically demonstrate peri-urban characteristics – a blend of urban and rural. However, in Delhi, years of unplanned integration of the villages and subsequent lack of development had led to peri-urban characteristics being visible in inner city areas as well, along with all its associated complexities.
Conclusion
The experience of Delhi has brought out the dynamic role of the slums and village settlements and their informal economic activities to the urbanization process. They provide high value added contribution of the urban economy and to a large extent keep the wheels of commercial and industrial activities in the formal sector in operation.
This segment of the urban economy, probably best manifests the vibrant atmosphere of the growth process, even though it fails to derive a fair share of the benefits of urbanization and growth. The main reason for this situation is the non recognition of the sector’s manifold contribution in official policies and programmes. There is a view that if this role is recognized and specific interventions are inducted into official programmes that could stimulate and facilitate the activities of the sector; the multiplier effects on production and employment in urban economy will be significant.
The issue of environmental degradation and non-conformance with the zoning regulations need to be addressed at a micro level. The ‘one size fits all’ kind of a strategy, so far practiced in Delhi, is not feasible for such a vast and complex city. As advocated in the MPD-2021, a smaller area based approach along with active citizen participation is desirable. But, given the present institutional capacity of the planning agencies, it is a distant proposition. Nevertheless, the recent urban crisis had substantially increased public awareness – which can play a positive in monitoring plan implementation.
References
Bentink, Johan, and Chikara, Shilpa (2001) Illigal Factories in Delhi: The Controversy, The Causes
and The Expected Future, International Workshop on ‘Coping with Informality and Illegality in Human Settlements in Developing Cities’, Leuven and Brussels, Network Association of European Researchers on Urbanisation in the South (N-AERUS) and European Science Foundation (ESF)
Chatterji, Tathagata, (2000) City Blights – The Irrelevance of Master PlansTimes of India, New
Delhi, 16th December, 2000
Chatterji, Tathagata, (2003): City Blights – Master Plans as Masterly FailuresTimes of India, New
Delhi, 8th September, 2003
Chatterji, Tathagata, (2007): An Overview of the Emerging Pattern of Urban Development in India,
Australian Planner, Volume 44, Number 1, March 2007, Kingston ACT (Australia) Planning
Institute of Australia
Delhi Development Authority (2007) Master Plan of Delhi - 2021
http://www.dda.org.in/planning/planning_default.htm
Deswal, D, (2007): Almost every family is Crorepati in this villageTimes of India, New
Delhi, 24th July, 2007
Dhar-Chakroborty, P.G., (2001) Delhi’s Ongoing Debate on Informal Settlements and Work Places -
The Issues of Environmental Jurisprudence, International Workshop on ‘Coping with Informality and Illegality in Human Settlements in Developing Cities’, Leuven and Brussels, Network Association of European Researchers on Urbanisation in the South (N-AERUS) and European Science Foundation (ESF)
Dupont, V., Tarlo, E. and Vidal, D., (2000). Delhi: Urban Space and Human Destiny New Delhi
Manohar - CSH
Dupont, Veronique (2005). ‘Residential Practices, Creation and Use of Urban Space: Unauthorised
Colonies in Delhi’, in Hust, E., and Mann, M., eds., Urbanization and Governance in India,
New Delhi, Manohar- CSH
Government of India (2001) Census Report 1991-2001, New Delhi http://www.censusindia.net/
Government of the NationalCapitalTerritory of Delhi (2005) Delhi: Economic Survey 2005-2006
http://delhiplanning.nic.in/ecosurvey.htm
Govt. of the NationalCapitalTerritory of Delhi (2006) City Development Plan – Delhi,
Hust, Evelin. (2005). ‘Problems of Urbanization and Urban Governance in India’ in Hust, E., and
Mann, M., eds., Urbanization and Governance in India, New Delhi, Manohar
Leclerc, Eric and Bourguignon. (2006). ‘Defining the Urban Fringe through Population Mobility’ in
Dupont V, and Sridharan, N., eds., Peri-Urban Dynamics: Case Studies in Chennai,
Hyderabad, and Mumbai New Delhi, Centre de Sciences Humaines
Mehra, Ajay K. (2005). ‘Urban Villages of Delhi’ in Hust, E., and
Mann, M., ed., Urbanization and Governance in India, New Delhi, Manohar
NASSCOM (2002) NASSCOM’s Handbook on ITES-BPO Industry, Delhi
UN HABITAT (2001) The State of the World’s Cities 2001 Nairobi United Nations Centre
for Human Settlements
Yadav, Sandeep (2006): Capital Chaos, http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/portal/2006/03/374 accessed
on July 01,2007
[1] During the decade of 1941 to 1951 Delhi recorded the highest demographic growth, as population increased from 700,000 to 1.4million For detailed discussions see, Veronique Dupont, ‘Spatial and Demographic Growth since 1947 and the Main Migration Flows’, in V.Dupont, E.Tarlo and D.Vidal (eds.) Delhi: Urban Space and Human Destinies, New Delhi:Manohar, pp 229-239
