What are the urban planning challenges today?

Inferences from review of JNNURM CDP & Appraisal Reports!

Following sectoral list of “Urban Planning Challenges” have been compiled based on data extracted and analyzed from JNNURM Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for selected cities of India and its appraisal reports. Though these aspects are generalized and somewhat overlapping across most of the urban nodes of Indian sub-continent, lessons and inferences can be equally valuable and applicable for other cities across the world to considerable extent. It’s just an effort to have a consolidated perspective and understanding of future urban challenges, you can further suggest additional planning constraints and challenges to the list!

Comprehensive list of Urban Planning Challenges-

INSTITUTIONAL 

Functional overlap

Jurisdictional overlap

Issues of convergence and coordination

POLICY     

Lack of stakeholder consultations or under-participation

Disaster management issues

Governance issues

Delegation of functions to the new ULB

Prioritizationof action and projects alienated from problems and vision

Matters of resource sharing with neighboring states

ECONOMIC

Lack of value-add sectors

Expansion of informal sector

Continued influx of low skill manpower from neighboring states in some cases

Expanding un-organized sector

Lower work participation rates of women at some places

SOCIAL     

Issues of urban sociology in a multi-ethnic city

Social unrest,

Civil disobedience,

Public safety,

Unemployment,

MUNICIPAL FINANCE   

Unstructured financial profile of urban local bodies

Long-term financial viability of municipal finances

Capital investment requirement

High level of dependency on state government grants

Un-assessed properties for property tax base

Tax rates not being revised regularly

Irregular flow of specific grants

Irregular servicing of debt

PROPERTY 

Low coverage of properties by taxation

Low collection efficiency,

Inefficient user charge

SLUMS & URBAN POOR       

Security of tenure

Quality of housing

Access to infrastructure

Rehabilitation and resettlement

Problem of sanitation

Community toilets

Inadequate night shelters and security

High density with poor infrastructure

Issue of ‘unapproved slums’

PLANNING 

Infrastructure deficits

Unplanned growth

Constraint on growth in city areas due to natural or environmental constraints

Increasing gap between demand and supply

Inadequacies in the basic services in unauthorized clusters

Encroachment,

Non-confirming land use

Missing link between physical and fiscal planning

Protecting, conserving and managing heritage resources

Skewed spatial density distribution

TRANSPORT

Limited road space

Shortage of public transport system

Regional traffic through the city

Inadequate management of streetlights

Problems of roads and transport during festival season

Congestion in the old city areas

Lack of facilities for NMV

Rapid increase in vehicles

Lack of land use transport integration

Inadequate facilities for physically challenged, pedestrians

Inadequate parking

Multiplicity of agencies

Missinguser interface

WATER     

Nonrevenue water

Leakages

Losses in distribution network and transmission main

Inequitable Distribution

Obsolete distribution system 

High energy cost in water production and Distribution

Ground water pollution

Water supply Vs storage capacity gap

Ground water depletion

Problems of water supply on specific festival days

O&Mproblems

Unequal intra-city distribution

Inefficient network hydraulics,

Old and dilapidated networks

Pricing and cost recovery

High pollution in distribution network

River/ Sea odor

Lack or failure of river action plans

SEWAGE   

Limited sewerage treatment facility,

Release of untreated municipal waste into rivers

Release of untreated waste into natural drains and open grounds

Disposal of industrial effluent into the city rivers,

Soft soil condition

Storm water management

DRAINAGE 

Frequent floods

Lack of proper drainage system

Silting

Uncontrolled solid waste dumping causing blockage,

Stagnation of water & waste water runoff

Backflow of water from the river system

Flooding during monsoon season

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (SWM)

Absence of effective primary collection mechanism

Inadequacy of waste dumping sites

Lack of scientific waste disposal

Continued use of open dustbins

Un-segregated waste disposal

Land availability for sanitary dump sites

Issue of industrial slag

HEALTH CARE    

Inadequate bed strength

Ill-equipped and inadequate operation theatre in some government hospitals

Ill-equipped corporation dispensaries and health posts

Unsafe hospital waste disposal practice

ENVIRONMENTAL

Depletion and pollution of water resources,

Degradation of forest cover

Deteriorating air quality

High incidence of environmental health problems

NATURAL  

Earthquake

Fire

Possibility of epidemic events

JNNURM CDP & Appraisal Report Source: http://jnnurm.nic.in/citywise-cdp.html. 

How representative are “Top something or other City” tags?

Why average outcome doesn’t work for average urban population?

Why city ranking may not necessarily be a reflection of the state and policies of a city and might not be of much direct or immediate relevance for average stable urban population other than attracting business and outside population and tourists? A city provides and should provide a very unique opportunity to each individual through its unique micro environmental influences which most often supersedes the average ambient environment of a city which is showcased by positioning of a city on varied ranking scale ranging from livability to competitiveness and so on. An average ambient environment of any city (economically or otherwise) might not be a reflection of actual environment for an individual or unique sets of individuals with similar needs, like - people falling under different hierarchical economic profiles from extremely poor to ultra-rich, working and voluntarily non-working population, skilled and unskilled section, jobless people, children, aging population, differently abled segment, entrepreneurs, educationalist, illiterate population, people with health and lifestyle issues,  government representatives, corporate lobbies and countless urban social hierarchies and so on and on, each segment with differing needs and aspiration seeking and demanding distinct opportunities and support structure! That “n”th global or national rank of a city which is representation of average situation of city life doesn’t make much immediate sense to each of the above segments since most of the population is either one side or other of average with their very distinct situations and needs from the projected average. It’s not much of relevance unless it gets translated into their customized needs, enhanced economic condition, lifestyle and peace of mind and doesn’t directly relate to their livelihood opportunities and their specific needs. 

Apparently, there is a fundamental issue with the methodology and process of determining rank of a city. An issue with “Samplifying” the population, though samples apparently being inclusive and heterogeneous! Simply being inclusive won’t work, choosing a heterogeneous sample groups also won’t, because both of these approach will only lead to an average outcome, a clumsy generalized outcome which is bound to be alienated from the highly specific needs of individual components and groups which makes the society, which makes that supposedly heterogeneous and inclusive sample as well. Needs of a highly diversified society or a city with further diversified economic profile, age group, ethnicity, regional needs, conditioning and so on can’t be met by a single average solution, no matter how inclusive that solution sounds, no matter how heterogeneous was the sample. For example, you can’t simply average out the needs of a beggar and a millionaire, both part and parcel of a city, and come up with an average solution which should work for both of them. They need totally different solutions to grow and sustain. Hence the ranking of city based on accumulative impression of its different components, both tangible and perceived, which is an “Average” might give a deceptive impression of opportunities which any city provides for its inhabitants, does that sweeping statement like the best city to live in or so means that this particular city provides equal or ample growth opportunities for millionaires as well as the poorest section of the city or to the diversified segments as discussed earlier, or does it anyway gives an account or impression of having diversified livelihood instruments and strategies in form of public policies for different strata of city society. Public strategies and instruments are very distinct and regional in nature which can’t be quantified in a manner to be compared globally or nationally on a same appraisal scape with other cities! We need a very tender approach to deal with specifics of urban livelihood opportunities and state of its people, ranking seems over simplification at times, we need to do a reality check!

All said and done we still agree that city ranking is must, whether on the scale of livability or competitiveness or so on! Because it gives a scale of competitiveness on which city heath is monitored and compared with the benchmarked cities. A scale, on which the growth performance of a city can be monitored! Hence it helps shape the aspirations of a city and helps pave the way for its sustainable future. City ranking has a larger purpose to serve than just to conclude the state of infrastructure and ambient environment, city ranking creates an image of a city which further draws attention of world and hence attracts investment and generate revenues which further gets channelized in the making of a city through increased economic activities, strengthened infrastructure, enhanced regional accessibility, increased livelihood opportunities and so on. But apparently still city ranking is more of the external representation through its image building aspect than the state of actual internal health and opportunities in a city! Also a catch here, while creating a positive image of a city through ranking tools, originally envisaged to attract business and high spending population i.e. tourists, corporate activities etc., this enhanced image also accelerates the process of in-migration from the neighboring regions in search of better projected livelihood opportunities which further calls for urgent expansion of already constrained city infrastructure, delay of which can cause the damage to the same city image which they are deliberately trying to create, hence an image deficit vicious cycle. Focus has to be on autonomous networked decentralization in the region through regional ranking instead of / in addition to city ranking which otherwise encourages choking concentration of city. City doesn’t function in isolation; it’s a resultant of overlapping regional activities hence the focus should be on regional ranking, a periodic regional assessment, assessment beyond SWOT, call it ranking or whatever, which is much inclusive and more realistic in nature.