Urban development is contagious, keep an eye and let it spread!

One gear triggers other and whole machine gets activated.

Process of urban development is spontaneous, sometimes sluggish sometimes fast but always forward looking, if left on its own it will automatically morph and mutate and expand, to cater, to accommodate, by utilizing whatever little or more they have, by seeking and digging what and when they require. And we are not talking about another Squatter!

Left on its own city might sustain and prosper or it might entangle and be a mess, but it will grow for sure, that’s how we have made our journey from jungle to habitat spanning centuries. We need planning upfront today different from mud house age since our needs have changed and so the externalities, otherwise natural mutation of habitat or city should technically be sustainable a phenomenon.

Development has inertia of growth inbuilt we just don’t know in which direction, though we really don’t have to push is so hard we have to just push it to keep it rolling and have to give it a logical direction.

Upfront capital being a key constraint in urban development sector, an example of mutating self-sustaining habitat can be an additive model of shelter where you give only that much of infrastructure which is basic but with provision of ample spatial flexibility and assistance at disposal, and letting them build further on their own, based on their capacities, choices and needs. Creating some rules to play with and giving them an assistive hand when and where they require.

A favorable environment, assistive and vigil governance and a scientific approach are what we need to see this natural development phenomenon unfold and sustain.

Lets restore the lifeline of city called River! #LetsRestoreRiver

Riverfront development as a tool for ecological revival.

River-edge development is about confronting the centuries of neglect towards lifeline of city called river.

It is about restoring the natural dignity of river while making some commercial sense out of it.

That riverfront was anyway thriving ecologically before city invaded the river edge.

River edge development is just an effort to restore the past equilibrium.

[Post by- Anoop Jha]

Key traits of future cities! #futurecities

[Post By- Anoop Jha]

A complete new mindset is needed to craft future cities-

Focus on judicious use of resources rather than creating abundance.

Focus on leveraging and channelising externalities rather than eliminating it.

Harnessing untapped second hand energy.

Eliminating wastage by design rather than repeated appeal and imposing penalty.

Waste to be increasingly viewed as resource rather than burden.

Focus on eliminatingneed of artificial day-lighting instead of promoting LED.

Engineered to the very core to sustain.

Decide your own workplace rather than “walk to work”.  

Carry your personalised holographic and sonic environment wherever you go. 

City’s problem isn't congestion; problem is the way we approach to solve the congestion!

Majority of city's problems can be solved by simply restructuring policies, but physical infrastructure is more lucrative an option for many.

You can pump millions of dollars in augmenting and upgrading city infrastructure, of course you should, but city in its functionality will still remain a mess and increasingly convoluted unless you pause and think that what has been wrong with our planning approach, why it is that our planning solutions always seem to lag far behind the pace of growth, is it revenue constraints? No! Is it land constraint? No! It is nothing but common sense deficit. It’s simple, if it doesn’t work go back to the drawing board, put you approach up-side-down or whatever, something different need to be introduced; at least as an experiment.

Our conventional planning approach borrowed from industrial age has remained more or less the same since decades, that is to put it crudely "Planning means addition", more people - let’s make more housing, more congestion - let’s make more flyovers, more heat let’s put more air conditioners and so on.

Buildinganother affordable housing is not a problem but it’s also not the solution. Building another flyover will of course ease the traffic for sometime but it is also not the solution which cities are looking for. The single largest criteria of a livable city can be effortlessness of any city, but effort seems to be the mandate of our city life. 

Have we ever considered why such sheer number of people are heading to metropolis in the first place apart from recreational purposes, it’s not because metropolis provide better employment opportunities, it’s because we simply fail to provide livelihood opportunity in small towns and villages. Can we suggest something to calm down this vary pace of regional population flux, instead of simply focusing on making another housing colony here in every metropolis, can we propose something which will help people earn their livelihood in the place of their choice not only in the place where they often come to struggle and survive.

Have we ever considered before making another flyover that why so many people and car out there on the roads in the first place, is it really necessary in this so called wired era for every single individual to commute to work to accomplish a job, is it that being physically present at a specified location every work weekday is of such monumental importance in a time of century were everyone claim to be virtually connected to everyone and having access to the resources of whole world on their finger tip. Considering this can we suggest something to reduce the very need or frequency of people to come to streets, people who commute to work 5-6 days a week or 24 to 40 hour a week. 

Why people have to waste a substantial portion of their productive lifetime commuting on city roads or tracks, commuting long hours to work mostly doing nothing, may be listening to music or playing video game on their tab, why to commute to work unless they work in a factory like production environment.

You see we are so caught up in the debate of public transport vs. private transit vs. walkability that no one is willing to ask this fundamental question why does every one of you have to commute almost every day for the purpose of work choking almost every street of city, why have we created such system or business environment or society in general. We simply can’t seem to think of any other possibility than expanding infrastructure trying to meet the pressure of self imposed need of commuting for work.

Whether travelling through private or public transport or walking to work, it’s still a waste of precious time, energy and resources. Can you even imaging the lost opportunity cost of millions of people spending several hours commuting to work-home-work almost every day of their productive like. After decades of industrialization is it still so important even today for 200 employees of a random organization to agglomerate everyday at a specific place called office at a specific time to accomplish some work, majority of which can be done from anywhere in the world, majority of which on majority of days does not fundamentally demand physical presence of worker or employee in office. Can’t we instead of simply expanding the city and transport network think of reducing the number and frequency of trip to work? Can’t we think of increasing the share of recreational trip and reducing the work trip instead of aggressively focusing on increasing the share of public transport?

This conventional additive approach of planning is a vicious cycle of inefficiency perceived as virtuous cycle and promoted relentlessly without delving deep into the roots of problem and without pausing and questioning the inertia of planning process. Instead of this additive approach, a supplementary approach of planning is needed for fostering and supporting equitable growth across the region, and at the same time conventional planning wisdom which is dear to many, needto be questioned!

Early collaboration - The only sustainable way to a successful project!

Skewed focus on man hours shows lack of vision and macro level perspective.

We are trying to deal here two separate but overlapping subjects.

Apparently it will take another century for people to realize and acknowledge that amount of man hour invested for certain outcome has very less or at times has nothing to do with the outcome, except in a production environment. They have glamorized work rather than results because that’s what they have done throughout preliminary to mid evolutionary stage of their existence, it’s only recently that they have realized that they should pause and rethink, re-strategies their way of working, possibly that’s why there are so many managerial positions and functional hierarchy exists in any work environment, that’s why machines and automation today. In the bygone era when people used to rely on theirs hunting instinct and brute strength to gather food day and night just for their survival, at that point of time outcome was directly proportional to amount of man hour invested, but if we are carrying that same attitude in our present life even after countless centuries later whether its work or daily chores or educational environment, then there must be something wrong in our approach or mindset. Though all these novel mindbits are not going to change anyone since people have and will find out traditional or innovative ways to invest their precious time and resources in some not so productive or rather wasteful laborious works in the name of engagement, work ethics, traditional methodology and so on. Man hours are still essential today but is not and should not be monumental, rather than putting mindless hours of shear hard work on a certain issue or project one should engage there mind towards strategic intervention, re-intervention and resource-optimization regarding that particular issue or project for lesser hour of work per outcome which in turn will lessen the stress level, provide work satisfaction and give more hour of leisure time. 

   

Let’s take an example of project lifecycle. You start with an assumption or a vision, say we have to build a new state-of-art sustainable or something city. It is primarily driven by demand and project economics, you estimate and gather resources accordingly, you set a timeline, you of course have a template of timeline which you as a consultant or a developer apply everywhere because you see it’s a proven methodology or timeline. Construction and project management process has a time span with only marginal flexibility since it’s a production environment and it has its own time and technological limitations, so keeping that aside let’s see where is the scope of improvement in terms of saving work hours in a project lifecycle from the very beginning right from the moment when that bright idea first strikes somebody’s brain.  Project and business development you know also has its own pace of progress depending on which particular part or location of the world your client and project is located, but for the time being our focus would be planning and design process and understanding how much man hour and resources we usually apply for certain outcome and how to optimize that, whether there is even scope for optimization or not, though one feels there is, indeed. You quickly prepare a vision plan statement right or wrong but appealing, you allocate responsibilities; you start on a blank sheet with a mug of coffee to catch ideas out of thin air or relying on one’s experience and knowledge or understanding of the contemporary regional market or in some cases straight sanitized ideas from Google, bravo! After a quick brainstorming session one person or maybe two lays the broad outline of plan or design based on certain assumptions while rest of the workforce starts filling the intermediate details and ruthlessly keep on detailing only until they realize that something went grossly wrong in the broad outline or the assumptions, or may be client changed their mind or may be a new board of director or project leader with his or her own particular vision or idiosyncrasy has appeared either your side or on client’s side who wants everything to be re-done from scratch to align things to his or her vision, or may be market situation has changed or may be a new technology has surfaced and so on.   

What was wrong here? Putting ruthless countless hours of detailing is okay but only if the project framework is robust and logical enough to sustain any or most of the future dynamics, an outline and assumptions accommodative and smart enough to absorb and negotiate inevitable future changes as it proceeds ahead. What was wrong here is that when most of the collaborative effort was needed then only one or two people were deciding the fate of project due to their commanding position. In this exemplary case of new city vision plan, when it was the time where urban and regional planner, transport planner, economist, real estate expert, social scientist, environment planners, landscape experts, urban designers, architects, and public and community representatives had to be present at one platform at the beginning of the project to brainstorm and formulate an inclusive, sustainable and future proof plan with democratic consensus, at that vital point of time only one or two people where making the decisions according to their own particular idiosyncrasies, which was inevitably unsustainable. Hence, the several repetitive cycles of wasteful man-hours till the completion of project.  You should know when is the right time to collaborate; you can keep on detailing endlessly afterwards, if you want! Thousands of sincere man hours put in wrong direction is a serious toll on increasingly scarce resources which we can’t really afford if we want a sustainable future or even otherwise and all this thoughtless waste just because we didn’t collaborate when it was needed most.  

You see there are frequent cases when some projects of regional or national importance get stuck for infinite time even when they were just about to complete, only because community representatives were not part of the planning process irrespective of whether there is such provision or not, either they didn’t have proper say or they lacked motivation and incentive to join or collaborate early, such a waste of resource as a result!     

  

A place called Street!

Route De Sospel, Menton, Monaco

View Larger Map

The only sustainable retrofit whether it’s a product or city environment

To leave scope for future retrofits in the moment you conceive the idea of product or vision of a city.

Today you realize after 5 or 20 or 30 years that this product or system or infrastructure which you had planned back then with the most sophisticated tools and technology available at that time, with the best brains at disposal and the best hands available, that robust system of past desperately needs a technology overhaul and efficiency retrofit today, just to validate its contemporary relevance and to drag itself for few more miles in the tomorrow, but it would have been quite difficult for you to confront and accept this apparently unpleasant fact that this product, infrastructure, system or even strategy which you claim to be the most advanced and avant-garde today is very soon going to be outdated, very soon indeed!! Acknowledge it or not, that’s how it works, especially when technology, planning and policy is concerned only thing which remains eternal is aesthetics and nostalgia associated with such technology, possibly that’s why many people still prefer analog watch over digital one, that’s totally a personal choice.

Change is not only an integral law of nature but equally a law of technology, inevitable like growth of humanity, because humanity is curious and that’s why innovation and hence need to replace and retrofit old technology. Problem with the contemporary approach of planning and product design is that we tend to conceive and create a system or product which is 100% complete in its form and design “today” leaving no scope for future integration except few exceptions, even knowing that need for retrofit is waiting only at the next turn of system or product life-cycle  You see those overly stuffed embedded products, jam packed conduits, circuits and channels, overcrowded service corridors, saturated underground utility trench, suffocating right of ways (ROW), chaotic narrow streets, thousands of unventilated unlit city rooms and residences, all of this have two things in common, one, is the shear lack of vision and second, ignorance to change. Change which is inevitable, but we are happy and content with what we have planned today, who cares for tomorrow? Meanwhile, you enjoy all the attention and praise because of your new product and system. They might even have bagged few awards for best innovation and work in the field, but it all doesn't really matter if that product or vision fails in next couple of years. The single largest criteria of product or planning judgment and evaluation has to be sustainability, which means your product or system or vision have to have an inbuilt scope for absorption of future technology and efficiency integration for sustainability, to keep up with future pace of life and lifestyle.

Lets talk something about "sustainability" here. The word "sustainability" has been exploited much in recent years  increasingly assuming a very narrow meaning just revolving around "anything green". Lets keep in mind that being or doing green is just a piece of sustainability. Sustainability is much more, it is vastly inclusive a phenomenon, it is about the whole life cycle of product or system or plan. if you make a greenest product on earth which has a life span or tech-viability span or people-acceptance span of one or two year that is not sustainable when compared to a product which is though not so green in its DNA but which has a larger life span or acceptance span of may be half a decade or so or more. All the resources  which has gone into making of that short lived green product goes to vain at the end of its functional or acceptance span but the similar resources  which has been consumed in making that not so green product with a much longer life span seems more sustainable an option.  Using 5 most "greenest" products of same use one after another in just five years is much less sustainable than using 1 single "not so green" product for 5 years.

Now today you realize that environmental laws have become more stringent, people have become more educated, aware and choosy  technology has become more and more complex and sophisticated, every coming tomorrow product or system of yesterday is becoming obsolete, what to do. We can’t really plan for something which has not been invented yet, but we can always try to leave some scope for future integration, for the time when it is invented. It might add to few percent of capital or man hour but it’s worth giving a thought. Acknowledging the need for future retrofit and leaving some scope for it today will make our life easy tomorrow, products more relevant and cities more sustainable.   

Urban underground art : perception and mainstream absorption!

A case of graffiti culture in a city environment.  

Some say its vandalism, some find it an art, some say its irrational some say it’s cool, some see it outdated, at places it’s in vogue, reasons can be many, from fun to revolution but result is one - Graffiti. In this varying landscape of purpose and perception, there is always an apparent struggle to conclude what is right and what is wrong in an urban environment. What with graffiti? Why this perpetual struggle between city administrations and those who create such art-pieces, some anonymous, some leaving their stamp.

Graffiti is an art form standing at the edge of law. Some do it for thrill; some to put across their message, for some it’s an outlet, some do it for recognition and some to revolt against established values and norms. Even after decades of existence there has not been any consensus on the subject. City administrations are either strictly against it or will shy away from the subject saying that they have larger issues of city infrastructure, education, poverty and all at hand to deal with. Go ask a planner, what with Graffiti, what to do with it, you will find them clueless, though some of them might tell you few ways to curb this phenomenon.

Why graffiti culture exists in first place? Unless we try to understand the psychology of underground art, we can’t find a reasonable answer and solution to it. May be it’s the very imposition of rule to curb this behavior, triggers and sustain this behavior. Thrill of breaking the law, mixed with artistic skill, daring move and motivation by some cause, results in graffiti.

Isn’t it good to have wonderful artists in your city? But an artist needs to express and if you won’t give them enough opportunities and enough canvas they will express themselves in any manner, anywhere,  even if it’s a wall, and in this case public properties become soft target. Art itself has no boundaries, but we divide it in good and bad, civilized and vandalism. Piece of art by those few artists who have enough opportunity and money to display their work of art in an upscale gallery becomes a civilized and socially accepted art while the similar piece of art or poor or better if expressed on the walls of city streets and subways and any abandoned structures in form of graffiti gets a tag of vandalism. Can we do something about it?

There are few cities which provide long public walls at sea shores and other specified places specially for making graffiti, for those underground graffiti artists, who do not have to remain underground any more. They are making wonderful graffiti, day and night on these public canvases provided by city administrations, they don’t have to paint the subways and public structures anymore. Temporary, though they have a place for their creative outlet. We can always have some control strategies in place to check the nature and subject of graffiti to respect the feelings and sentiments of citizens.   

They say Taki or someone invented it, I think it exists before the dawn of civilization, remember those wonderful paintings from prehistoric caves? Its basic instinct of human being to express, expression in tangible forms, expressing it for good, to document, to leave it for generations to come, tools doesn’t matter, modes of expression is irrelevant and changing constantly. From prehistoric caves to modern urban wall they have expressed it and they will find out ways and means to express in future. So, it might be a good idea to start thinking of some city level policy intervention measures to provide an appropriate and recognized platform for easy and legalized creative expression, rather than negating its existence and simply trying to get rid of it.   

Planners and city administrations need to come forward and suggest strategies to integrate underground art in their city development plans and urban landscape. Making this form of art publicly acceptable and giving it mainstream recognition by taking illegality, obscenity any kind of provocation out of it. They need to propose strategies to recognize urban talent which has remained underground till now, and propose plans to nourish them by channelizing their talent in right direction and at right place. Simply creating and imposing the anti-graffiti law and trying to maintain the same is not the answer to this ever growing phenomenon, we need to channelize that creative energy in the right direction and at right places by creating favorable environment and instruments in city landscape.

                                                         

By: Anoop Jha

So that you never run out of development ideas again!

Wonderful list of vision script for urban development,

Have created a list of possible vision statements in snippet form for your quick reference, just to keep your creative thinking wheel running. 

Reshaping city, Re-harmonizing urban clusters, Recasting city silhouette, Re-energizing spirit of city, Re-establishing magnificence of old city, Revisiting the glorious past, Re-engaging population, Re-engineering city infrastructure,  Reconnect to past, Rethinking city, Repositioning city, Recreating       history, Reinventing urban mobility, Reorganizing urban growth, Rebuilding city aspirations, Reintroducing urban techniques, Redeveloping business hubs of city, Rerouting transit veins of city, Re-knitting city fabric,  Reuniting city fragments for better functioning, Urban rezoning for optimization, Reintegrating smart urban technology, Redesigning mobility grid, Re-envisioning historic city, Re-proposing mobility, Reimagining urban future, Redefining boundaries of urban innovation, Repurpose  city finance, Reorienting city growth direction,  Rebuilding city governance structure, Re-linking destinations, Rearranging development priorities, Realigning development objectives, Reprioritizing urban development avenues, Restructuring functional hierarchy of city, Re-exciting life in urban public spaces

“Sun Sign architecture” - Going beyond Vastu and Feng Shui

Where architecture and astrology comes together!!

Is it possible to provide tailor-made architecture for individuals? Each member of a family has a particular trait, temperament, preferences and choices, when it comes to architecture and interior design some have strict preferences, some have vague idea of what they are looking for, some doesn’t even know what they want, so when an architect asks client about their aspirations, design, functionality and aesthetic choices for their new dream home, client’s responses are either based on recent impression of their architectural quest through architecture and design magazines, neighborhood villas, exploration during travel etc., while integrating little bit of their own needs with a cap of tentative budget.

Now an architect has few choices to make. One is to give client exactly what client want and keep them satisfied in terms of their design aspirations- client is happy, you get your money, job done! Another choice is to take this project as an opportunity to fulfill your own long awaited dream as an architect- you have got a wealthy client willing to invest, you got an architectural playfield to release your creative juices, go ahead and make some masterpiece, you can always justify your work through some convincing design theory or philosophy.  Third choice which is apparently more transparent and holistic in nature is to delve deep into the client’s mind and personality and dig out their dormant design aspirations and help them express their feelings. How can we do that? Clients might be shy, might be dominant, might be receptive, might be stubborn, no matter what, it’s the job of architect to thoroughly understand the client’s need while deliberating possible alternatives and provide them the best tailor-made solution possible. A sensible architect strikes a balance between his or her own architectural inclination and client’s precise needs.  

A basic understanding of astrological elements like sun signs, its characteristics, traits and corresponding effects on the individual’s personality, nature and behavior, aspirations, moods, aesthetic demands in terms of preferred colors, materials, etc. belonging to a particular suns sign, might help a lot to understand the clients unexpressed needs. Most of us will accept that knowingly or unknowingly we tend to choose a particular design element type and objects over another, we also tend to appreciate a particular surrounding ambiance type over another, so knowing the sun sign of client and considering their physical, psychological and aesthetic effects and traits on client’s choices while designing might give an extra edge to final architectural product including interior design. Imagine designing a unique house for a family with a unique blend of colors, material, warmth spaces etc. chosen based on their individual sun sign, amalgamating into each other catering to unspoken traits and temperament of inhabitants.

Architects and interior designers might understand the significance of basic astrology in architecture (and we are Not talking about Vastu and all here) but they won’t prefer to use it for the benefit of client, because no one asked them to do this, neither it was part of their education nor its part of their scope of work, while it adds a little challenge and thrill to their work demanding extra time which they don’t seem to have. Given a second thought you might find it a good idea and a valid reason to incorporate a little bit of sun-sign in every architecture which is private in nature, tailor-made to individuals. 

By- Anoop Jha

Do we need structural reform in education system?

One education does not suit all.

We have created a template of education system based on our own idea of what an ideal educational curriculum and growth path should be and we want everyone belonging to different economic strata of society to follow the same path. Whether they are kids of millionaires or underprivileged children they are supposed to go through the same education structure. This phenomenon of standardization is more visible at elementary and secondary education level. Sheer number of children to be educated makes an excuse for standardization of education.

What makes us think that educational needs of poor underprivileged segment is same as prosperous segment of society, while their priorities and their skill needs are way different from each other. Their average educational lifespan might significantly differ; they might need a different curriculum, different educational structure and different style of teaching. Are we trying to pave a path for children of a incredibly poor migrated family living in squatter of city up to the graduation and post graduation and doctorate level, can he or she afford to invest so much of their life time earning education while their parents are struggling for their livelihood throughout their life and searching for a descent place which they can call home? Isn’t it that the educational needs of these special kids are way different from the middle and higher income segment of society? Don’t they need a kind of education which will allow and help them earn some money to fulfill their personal needs and help sustain and support their family while they are getting educated? This is something which standard education system fails to provide. School’s prime focus has remained on providing knowledge while what these marginalized kids need is skills which they can immediately put into practice and help uplift their socio-economic profile, they can’t wait to get a job or start their own business till they graduate from an engineering college. They have to act now to get out of that mess; they can peruse their education at any point later in life in their area of interest to further enhance their skills.

Talking of middle class segment, look at the majority of first-generation entrepreneurs who choose to become an entrepreneur due to increasingly tempting business opportunities of modern world and technological advancements in-spite of any family history of business or entrepreneurship, but majority of them are apparently lost or clueless about how to move forward. What an irony, throughout the education ladder these kids were prepared for corporate job and they choose to become entrepreneur and found themselves struggling and lost in the big business world, dominated by family business houses, whether a business house of a small shopkeeper or  empire of well known business family. Take a case of any city in India, majority of middle segment business owners have only basic elementary education from generations to generations, and they are surprisingly doing well, they didn’t feel the need of further formal education so they voluntarily dropped out from the school, their parents taught them the skills they needed to run the business, they inherited the knowledge which was needed to run the show. They would have never learned these skills in the schools with present education structure, because present education system doesn’t treat them as a special niche group at elementary and secondary education level who need customized education. Hence the first generation entrepreneurs feel lost while business houses run their business smoothly.

Imagine the growth potential of individual and communities with the targeted education, imaging the growth potential of a kid who gets targeted training in his family business (whether its pottery, metal works, furnishing or anything else, at elementary to secondary education level which he is witnessing through generations, and compare it with the collective loss of potential due to flat “good for all” education structure. Loss seems to be monumental. It’s time that the fundamental structure of education need to be revived and should become increasingly skill oriented starting right from the elementary level. 

Let me Complicate it for you!!

Human mind needs complexity to appreciate design and aesthetics

If it’s too obvious it’s boring. If we have seen it earlier or something similar, it’s boring anyway. We always look forward to see and appreciate a piece of design or work of art or architecture which is refreshingly new, but still with a stubbornness  of design expectations since we also love the nostalgia attached to the familiarity of object or subject.

Possibly the reason abstract and modern art emerged is because people were fed up of realistic and photo-realistic portraits and other painting subjects and demanded something new something avant-garde to appreciate. Though there were complexity of techniques and process involved in those elaborately detailed classical or miniature paintings but abstractness of modern art gave viewers infinite possibilities to perceive, interpret and appreciate the artworks.  Though the artwork and style was new, people were still able to relate to it because of carefully chosen subjects of contemporary importance of that era or region. Similarly with architecture, possibly the abstract and minimalistic  architecture emerged because people were tiered of those architectural details and geometrical orders, people later demanded purity of geometry not the order of geometry, they demanded thematic abstractness of elements not the sensory overload of detailing and Minimalistic architecture provided them all they wanted.

We have reached a time in the human evolution where we seem to have cracked the base code of aesthetics, analysing the rich history of art and architecture and documented enough in course of time for generations to come, while accelerating fast towards future. Now when we have tested basic design flavor and aesthetics of almost every kind how will we satisfy the design and aesthetic urge of humanity which is always looking out for something new to appreciate.

History shows, we have and we will find out new ways to provide the world with new design aesthetics which they will enjoy and appreciate. Fortunately there are ways to do that. Apparently there are two fronts on which we can innovate. One is technology; other is complexity of design itself. Technology will provide us materials, techniques etc. to innovate on design front and complexity of design will give us opportunity to challenge and satisfy the demanding aesthetic urge of curious human mind in field of art, design, architecture etc. What is complexity in this context? Complexity is to give them a piece of work , art or design or architecture which is difficult to grasp in one go like a puzzle, but quite familiar, contextual and easy once decoded, something which challenges the mind. Complexity provided by emerging materials, techniques and tools as well as complexity of forms, and abstractness.

By- Anoop Jha

Why public transport system should reach breakeven much before projected

Dilemma of perceived order and actual chaos

A case of typical buzzing metropolitan city of any developing country

Ever wondered while travelling in a suffocatingly overcrowded metro or local train that whether they might have shown similar huge footfall numbers in their design and financial reports? Don’t think so. Because they can’t!!

No guideline in the world allows such high density of footfall per unit area within any public transport system, because that is insane, that is inhuman. But unfortunately its happening, because huge gap of demand and supply. And we accept it, we don’t mind, we don’t question, we don’t have option, we not only accept it, we often praise it, of course public transport is a wonderful system of mass transit, but no wonder why a huge segment of population still prefer to travel by their own car, spending money and time like anything, just to get a private breathing space inside their personal car.

When it comes to transport numbers and financial projections for mass public transport system in overpopulated cities of developing countries, it’s usually purposefully flawed. Why? There is a catch. Metro and rail coaches are designed to accommodate a fixed maximum carrying capacity based on standards and international norms. Sounds good!! Because these standards consider the acceptable optimum and comfortable footfall/ ridership density as there thumbrule with some inbuilt tolerance for unexpected occasional growth in ridership and of course while doing design and financial projections for the MRT projects, consultants take these standard thumbrules as there basis for calculation with some contingency/ margin and they model there business plan as per this acceptable norms. They can’t show realistic overcrowded scenario in their financial calculations and projections because no financing agency/ bank/ partner will accept the model which is prepared by breaking the rule- like standard acceptable ridership density. Technically and morally they can’t propose a transport system which will be operating at an efficiency of 150-200% of its design capacity even if it is an inevitable case, because its unsafe, because it’s not acceptable on many grounds, at least they can’t disclose it in public domain otherwise there would be too much of hue and cry on the subject.  So when they come up with a financial projection with specified breakeven point, that breakeven point might not be realistic, it might be far beyond the actual realistic date. In actual overcrowded scenario more footfalls should help achieve breakeven point much early than projected.

It’s high time for those metropolitan cities which are struggling to provide an adequate and morally acceptable comfort level to its people, either in its transit system or may be in domain of housing and who repeatedly fail to provide the same due to unmanageable population growth and financial constraints, should recognize their constraints, and devise an operational methodology which is more realistic and suitable to their specific need.



May be they should accept inevitable higher population density and need to revise the ridership density thumbrule/ standards, reflecting real life scenarios of the city accepting their limitations, and should use the same in design and financial calculation. Understanding its limitations and inevitability of growth, may be a high density city needs a tougher and much robust metro and rail coaches with robust inbuilt facilities, robust air-conditioning system, higher air exchange rate, temper-proof interior, with more sophisticated audiovisual information system for fast and safe passenger exchange to avoid chaos due to confusion, may be they need better imbedded security system, may be they need to be educated in the school itself how to travel and behave in an overcrowded public transport system. May be they need to be educated in the planning schools to take into account real life scenarios while learning projections, maybe planners should be taught to challenge the validity and contextuality of thumbrules, established norms, methods and age old theories rather than simply imitating and following them in decades of inertia.  We will definitely have more and more sophisticated simulation tools for better understanding of the situation and more realistic projections, but we will still need human perception and judgment for a holistic planning which is beyond those formulas.

Some thoughts on socio-economic projections can be found here in another post titled “How reliable are socio-economic future projections?” http://planningurbanoregional.blogspot.in/2011/11/how-reliable-are-socio-economic-future.html

By- Anoop Jha

Deprived of design aesthetics?

Politics of Design and need of Design democracy

Apart from invention of wheel and some other similar historical or contemporary breakthroughs or design innovation which have served humanity to achieve better life and lifestyle, design has evolved in a very controlled manner at least in recent history and apparently it’s not by coincidence, it’s by choice, the choice of few able hands and minds who have manipulated the evolution of design for their personal monetary benefit. Design has lost its freedom and meaning since the commercialization of design has taken place. Contemporary design process has become less of necessity and more of luxury, apart from those which are for advancement of mankind like computers, rocket science and all.

Apparently designs are manipulated across the length and breadth of product industry to skew and control the market demand and trick the customers, whether its car or washing machine or laptop or handbag or any household product. You see, every item has a line of product to cater to every economical strata of society, that makes perfect sense – something for everyone! Story doesn't end here, it’s just the beginning, beginning of whole gimmick of manipulative product development and market control philosophy. Have you ever questioned why the product “X1” that you bought at cheaper price is average in looks, in its aesthetic appeal and in design than the similar high end product “X2” with its classy elegant look? Ever wondered why the products of same company has different aesthetic appearance across its product range, though its same materials, same product DNA, same manufacturer, same factory, almost same production time, same technology? Is it coincident that if you pay less you will get an inferior looking product no matter what is the product and higher you pay better aesthetical products you will get, no matter what is the product or is it that they have purposefully handed over average design to you and deprived you of the great design of the higher range product so that you will come back to buy the better looking product next time? We are not talking about imbedded technology, of course technology comes at a price.

Is it that we have accepted this hierarchy of design aesthetics as an integral part of business and our daily life? This is true for any product; let’s take car, for example.  Is it a coincidence that the same designer or company who produces that strikingly beautiful design of highest segment car with those passionate and careful curvatures of car body also produces average looking box like cars with primitive decades old design sense in its lower price segment? Is it a natural process of design or this vast aesthetic gap between cheap and expensive product has been created purposefully so that people will appreciate and crave for higher segment product? Otherwise what is holding back companies or designers to give a wonderful design and aesthetics to each of its customer irrespective of their economic profiles, with products prices varying primarily due to its embedded technology or robustness and uniqueness of inbuilt content or additional functional features?

But after all how does it matter, since there is no sense of design ownership and appreciation left in all of us after centuries of design exploitation and manipulation, since we seem to have accepted the fact that design and aesthetes are for rich and ultra rich and average person has no right to ask for a better designed product on an affordable price. Design democracy is only possible when people will feel the need for "right of design aesthetics". It’s high time that design community and product development companies should come forward and liberalise the covert design process and shed the design monopoly, which will only help them accelerate product growth process and a common man will get a better designed product in their budget. 

By- Anoop Jha