City Musings- a case of Bengaluru

The underlying analogies in “Successful Cities”

Exploring the idea of “Successful Cities”

According to various reports delving into the rate of urbanisation across the globe, it is believed that over 68% of the total world’s population will be living in urban areas by 2050. With the prediction stating that there will be 2.5 billion more people residing in cities, inevitably, the cities around the world are currently engaged in a constant struggle to find solutions to problems arising with exponential growth in urban agglomeration. The unceasing grapple of making cities successful is at the core of any country’s development. However, the term “successful” is, in itself, quite ambiguous when associated with cities. While in certain accounts, the success of a city is rated based on its population and economic capacity, others relate it to being cosmopolitan and thriving cultural environment. Other factors associate a city’s value based on its planning policies and governance, or in other cases, being diverse and inclusive. In recent years, climatic resilience of a city has also transpired as another factor in gauging the success of the city. Terms such as “global city”, “sustainable city” and “great city” have emerged and are often associated with what can be considered as a “successful” city within different parameters. With each parameter considered, the factors which make a city “great” or “successful” permutate and creates much confusion in defining the concept of a successful or great city.

In recent years, a supplementary parameter has been affixed to the existing ones and that has remodelled the concept further in an extremely unreserved manner. Besides economic growth and employment opportunities, and other factors mentioned afore, it’s the overall well-being of city dwellers that have been acknowledged as defining the idea of a successful city. Surveys like Mercer, or more popularly known as “Liveability Index”, which focus on the quality of life of city’s residents have been established as one of the defining parameters for assessing a city’s prominence. This implicates a dedicated shift in how the measure of a successful city has bought focus onto the people. Across the globe, the concept of defining a city has found its ground in creating an environment that ensures sustainable development with the overall well-being of the city’s residents.

Considering this contemporary parameter as the base, various surveys are being conducted throughout the world to identify the cities that have been able to best adapt to the trials posed by ever trans mutating urbanisation. Among various surveys, Vienna and Melbourne have been ranked at the top of Liveability Survey conducted by The Economist, while London and New York rank top in world’s best city ranking by World's Best Cities - Best Cities. These cities differ not only in geographical location but also in population, urban density, planning policies and numerous other urban factors, however, the measures taken by these cities to create a better environment for the city-dwellers seem to be rooted in similar planning policies and decisions that are focused not only on economic resilience but improvement in a sustainable and healthy urban environment.

“Critical factors for liveable communities are: resident’s safety, social well-being and inclusiveness; environmental sustainability; and access to affordable and diverse housing options linked via public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure to employment, education, local shops, public open space and parks, health and community services, leisure and culture.” (Melanie Davern, 2019)

Discerning Analogies: Around the globe

Vienna, ranked highest in Liveability Index, struggles as the population of the city proliferates. The challenges the city faces are comparable to every expanding city- providing affordable housing options, and mobility. The planning policies, thus, focus on providing equitable housing opportunities and linking them with an extensive network of public transport that consists of subway, buses and trams. Another factor that differentiates the city is the commitment to maintaining the green open spaces within the city.

“Former Vienna Deputy Mayor Maria Vassilakou stated- “About half the city is reserved for green space and 62% of the population, including a broad middle class, lives in social housing.”” (Dudley, 2019)

In the case of Melbourne, a similar framework emerges- a comprehensive mobility network that revolves around walkability, cycling and use of public transport. The “Plan Melbourne” is committed to the idea of “20-minute neighbourhood” at its core.

The concept is minimalistic- in every neighbourhood, all essential amenities should be accessible within 20-minute through an integrated network of public transport and choice of non-motorised commuting options. Further, to combat the issue of urban sprawl that plagues the city, the neighbourhoods are imagined as dense mixed-use neighbourhoods to incentivise diverse land-use into the existing framework.

“The goal is that this combination of (mobility) modes would offer a reasonably sized catchment area in which people, jobs and services, including recreational opportunities and nature, are accessible.” (John Stanley, 2020)

In London and New York, providing equitable housing option to the ever-increasing population has emerged as a ginormous challenge. Both cities boast high economic growth and independence, and a rich diversity- not only in socio-economic terms but also culturally and racially.

Facing escalation in the influx of urban population, accommodating affordable housing needs turns to a conspicuous predicament for these cities as prices soar high. The paradox in the balance between housing needs and relative prices results in the displacement of lowincome businesses and residents to outer areas. The social and economic diversity that these cities thrive on is put on the edge as the inner-neighbourhoods turn into a homogeneous mix. “New York’s good fortune has brought with it two formidable challenges: the challenge of displacement, the product of a rental housing market that has long been starved of inventory, and of meeting the transit needs of a growing city.” (Salam, 2018)

The displacement of residents towards outer boroughs creates an insurmountable strain on public transportation network and infrastructure, leaving an enormous load on limited funds for the city.

As the cities struggle with the housing crisis and rent affordability, they struggle to perceive the solutions in viable options of pedestrianizing streets and providing a robust public mobility network. The mobility network conceives an integrated public transport with nonmotorised commuting options that simultaneously cope with the congestion in inner business districts and establishes well-connected transport nexus throughout the city.

A highly triumphant and imitable example would be the case of New York - the 5th Avenue, or Times Square, was reorganised as a completely pedestrian zone. The visionary concept of pedestrianisation conscientiously relied on various tactical interventions to achieve it and was introduced only as an experiment at first, but the efficacious outcome soon made its permanence inevitable.

It is quite discernible that cities around the world are engaging with enigmatic quandaries, but when stripped of differential layers of complexities, the essential lies barestrengthening the sustainable mobility infrastructure and providing sufficient equitable housing options for its residents. It is to be understood however that the discussed cities are already metropolitan, with variegated systems in place in terms of spatial planning and embody economic prosperity and diverse population.

Corresponding Analogies: Case of Bengaluru

A parallel pattern of urban affairs can be observed in Bengaluru- the city that has undergone highly accelerated urbanisation in India. Popularly, and accurately, known as “Silicon Valley” and IT-hub of India, this cosmopolitan and demographically diverse city has experienced exponential growth in recent years. Since colonial rule, Bengaluru has been at the apex of urbanisation. In the early 1900s, the city was one of the first to successfully provide electricity through hydro-power. In a similar timeline, IISc was set-up which later laid the foundation of leading the city to the pinnacle of scientific research. Following this, the city was also developed as “Garden City of India”, when several projects were undertaken to construct public parks, buildings and hospitals in 1927.

Post-independence, various public undertaking projects like BEL, HAL, NAL among others were established in Bengaluru. ISRO’s headquarter was established in 1972 and by 1985, Texas Instruments, first-ever MNC set-up their office in the city. And in 1990’s Indian IT offices, like Infosys and Wipro Technologies were established, which put the city on a global map. Further, development through SEZ implementation opened various doors and consequently, the city turned into the cynosure of various successful start-ups like Flipkart, Myntra, Swiggy, and Ola Cabs among many.

It is quite evident that the growth of the city has been a result of numerous factors that established the city as a major economic hotbed and provided exceptional employment opportunities in both public and private sector. While this singular development of Bengaluru did lead to high economic prosperity and resilience, it also led to a massive influx in the urban population which made it one of the rapidly transitioning cities. As companies after companies established their offices and campuses around various locations in the city, the people who migrated to the city in search for employment opportunities settled around these campuses and further created many peri-urban areas connecting to the central city through a maze of the road network. Over the years, the population has risen drasticallyaccording to Bangalore Population 2020, it has seen an increase from an 8.5 million urban population in 2011 to 12.34 million in 2017. It has generated a huge strain on infrastructure and sustainable planning policies for city development as city transitions faster than the implementation of the planning process and policies.

“In theory, SEZs should increase employment, attract economic activity, and create a critical mass of high-earning, high-spending people. The benefits should, therefore, accrue in increased tax income for infrastructural development. However, in reality, revenue for Bangalore’s authorities has been outpaced by its rapid growth; attracted by low taxes, company growth exceeds the rate at which new roads, or water and energy networks can be built.”

(Challenges of Urbanisation: Inequalities in Bangalore, 2020)

This wide gap between the implementation of planned infrastructure and growth of the city population has disrupted the city system, and with it, the quality of life of its residents. The development of greater Bengaluru now consists of numerous peri-urban areas with haphazard development around them, with the heavy traffic congestion on the road network connecting them. Besides this, unorganised and unchecked development has resulted into creation of multiple clusters repeated throughout the city with no density regulation which further expands into an urban sprawl in a city that is already struggling with the existing population.

One of the biggest challenges Bengaluru is facing currently due to these urban anomalies is traffic congestion and loss of its open green public spaces. According to one study conducted by IISc, from the year 1999 to 2014, urban land use has increased by 184%, while vegetation and water bodies both have seen drastic decrease- 37% and 85% respectively.

Reinvigorating the vision of “More”-

Bengaluru has lately been apathetically seen as the city of ‘more’- More people, more vehicles, more traffic, more pollution, more slums. Perhaps, the time has come to redefine the idea of “more”, to go back to the basic when the city began- more choices.

The Herculean task in front of the city currently lies in dealing with traffic gridlock, looming housing crisis, and unsustainable environment that plagues the city. While the complexities lying in addressing the issues are distinctly exigent, the underlying challenges remain analogous with other cities across the world. Lessons can be learned, and then improved upon, from the measures taken worldwide with a focus on inter-connected mobility plan, and affordable housing with plenty of well-designed open urban areas- that have been crucial in creating ‘successful” cities across the world.

More mobility options- As the city expands, the numerous peri-urban areas should be the focus of various micro-development strategies. The city already offers various interconnectivity mobility network between these zones, it should strive to shift the attention back at multiple nucleus points strewn about the city.

The city has already developed a TOD plan, and incorporating a wider spectrum of mobility within neighbourhoods would lead to a largely unerring transport network. Many SEZ areas like Whitefield, Electronic City, Marathahalli, while having numerous connectivity options to other parts of the city through public transport, they face an acute interconnectivity issue through public transport within the area itself. Thus, an active mobility plan should be developed as per area-specific requirement which focuses on connecting various parts of the area through means of walking/cycling or public transport.

More housing options- The housing shortage in the city has resulted in major displacement issue which is forcing the low-income group and proletariat class out of the city. Taking cues from the planning policy of Vienna that believes in the ideology of Housing as Human-right, policies should be implemented that focus on slum-up-gradation and social housing mechanism. Involving private developers and incentivising them for construction of better models of social housing simultaneously with market-based properties should be prioritized to provide opportunities for equitable housing options.

Not only will this reduce the growth of urban sprawl that is increasing rapidly outwards from the city periphery, but it will also make it possible to provide basic infrastructure and

amenities to the lower-income group. An amalgamation of private and social housing will also result into a more heterogeneous social and economic environment, which will further create more employment opportunities for the lower-income group while simultaneously provide the other residents with diverse options for various services required.

More open and green public spaces- As a final measure, a drastic change is needed to manage the decreasing open spaces within the city. Once known as Garden City, the city has lost much of its open public areas. While the existing lakes and open spaces are choking with garbage and neglect, in some extreme cases, even becoming spill areas for dangerously harmful chemicals.

While the CSR scheme is already involved in the upliftment of existing parks and lakes, a strong law is needed against polluting the lakes and gardens. Along with it, a system of providing grants to individual community/areas or NPO/NGO’s can be envisioned that is solely dedicated to the development and maintenance of community parks/ area gardens.

Bengaluru has already demonstrated applaudable economic prosperity and diversity, which has drawn a great number of people in search of employment, and, it will continue to do so. Moreover, it should continue to do so.

Bengaluru has always thrived and taken pride in its capacity to evolve- from British cantonment to Garden City, from Garden city to Silicon Valley, and now its time to evolve again. Perhaps, not in economic terms, not in modifying the identity, but in an exemplary way to shift the focus back to its residents. The planning policies cannot, and must not try to regulate the proliferating population, rather, adopt the policies that mitigate and further adapt to the trials adequately.

As the debate around “successful” cities finds new parameters to discuss every day, it is unquestionable that cities have always moved towards creating a better environment for its residents. For centuries, they have been designed and modelled to accommodate the changing needs of the people. As more and more challenges have emerged, the design and planning policies have adapted to the demands raised by these changes. In the present time, as cities again struggle to adapt the growing needs of current residents, and anticipate the need for expected population growth, it is clear that future envisioned for cities across

the globe is centred around creating sustainable cities that are not only able to accommodate needs of each individual residing in the city but can deliver something extra for the complete well-being of the individual as well as communities.

While we may have focused on economic capacity as a measure of cities earlier, the shift in focus has bought forward an important aspect in limelight- the cities are for people. The neglect in understanding this concept led us to create cities that failed in attracting people and thus, failed miserably. Detroit, once a thriving industrial town, faced a rapid decline in population when it was unable to create favourable condition for its residents.

On the other hand, Portland, once written off as mediocre city found more and more people migrating towards it when they focused on human-centric planning policies.

“Best economic strategy you can have as a city is not the old way of trying to attract corporations and trying to have a biotech cluster or a medical cluster or an aerospace cluster, but to become a place where people want to be.” (Specks, 2013)

The challenge should not be to limit the population migrating towards the cities. A thriving city can only be achieved by offering the population a better living environment and all across the globe, that vision is what every city is struggling to conceive.

Works Cited

Challenges of Urbanisation: Inequalities in Bangalore (2020). [Motion Picture].

Dudley, D. (2019). Secrets of the World’s Most Livable City. CityLab

John Stanley, R. H. (2020). People love the idea of 20-minute neighbourhoods. So why isn’t it top of the agenda? The Conversation

Melanie Davern, B. G.-C. (2019, 9 16). We must address these 3 factors, to make our cities more vibrant and ‘liveable’. World Economic Forum

Salam, R. (2018). A Single Way Forward on Two of New York's Biggest Problems. CityLab.

Specks, J. (2013). The walkable city. TEDCity 2.0.

Gender Barriers in Public Spaces

Experiencing public transport in metropolitan cities in India

A recent commute in AMTS (Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service) bought back a vivid memory of my first experience of using city-buses in Bangalore during my college internship period. But before I start with that, let me first tell you what I was doing in the AMTS. It was a busy Tuesday morning when I and my batchmate decided to start with our project that dealt with documentation and investigating patterns of public movement on public transport-in our case- AMTS. Thus, ready with our video recorders and notebooks, we boarded the bus at 7:30 in the morning. Documenting the public, continuously boarding and alighting from the bus needed a vigil eye on movements they were making, and one particular lady caught my eye. She boarded the bus from rear automated doors (as per the rule), and decided to take the support of my seat and placed her bag at my feet. Busy with my own "meticulous" record-keeping, I soon forgot about her, until she picked up her bag and started to push through the crowd to get to the front part of the bus. I, being attentive to people who would be getting down at the next stop, assumed that she has made all that effort to alight at the next stop. However, I soon realised that was not the case.

She had simply moved away from the crowd of male passengers that had boarded the bus in recent stops. Further down a few stops, another situation caught my attention as few female passengers stayed standing, despite the availability of seats. A quick glance (quick, because I still had to document other passengers!) made me realize that all the seated passengers were males and I wondered if that was a possible reason. I had seen this pattern numerous times- this gender-based congregation in public spaces, and this particular case, even at the cost of much discomfort.

It made me notice the intangible boundaries that passengers had inordinately made within the bus. Females crowding closer to each other, and similarly, males next to each other.

And this was the reason why my mind went back to when I travelled in BMTC in Bengaluru and was impetuously a part of the same scenario. However, in the case of Bengaluru, it was much more discernible.

Even as a person who was boarding the BMTC bus for the first time, it was clear to me that females were supposed to gather at the front part of the bus, while the rear part was left for male passengers. Females would always take upfront part of the bus, no matter the availability of seats elsewhere. Similarly, males would stay at the rear part of the bus, even if it meant crowding that particular part and there was space available in front. Often, it would lead to heavy congestion at the rear part as male passengers would fill up space while the front part stayed, if not comfortable, then at least tolerable. It was under one such situation, when we, a group of 3 girls and 2 boys boarded a bus and stood right in the middle of these "boundaries" that the discussion began on why we tend to create such gender-based segregation. As we navigated from the idea of women's safety and comfort in public spaces to companionship equations to many other possible theories, we eventually started questioning if it was a case of a society driven gender dichotomy that we have been following- the role of society and culture in shaping a psychological impulse in each person that makes us gravitate towards our comfort zone.

It raged on endlessly (well, we were stuck in traffic of Bangalore after all.), but ended with all of us agreeing to the fact that these "boundaries" we form will disintegrate in the coming years as we move towards a more inclusive society. We, admittedly quite self-righteously, decided to crown ourselves as prime examples of this changing socio-cultural environment. However, this recent incident made me wonder if the inclusive society that we were sure was just around the corner, was much further away. If in two metropolitan cities, Bengaluru and Ahmedabad, we confront these situations so frequently, then surely, we as a society need to make large leaps before we can claim ourselves to be free from gender-barriers.