Urban land is undoubtedly the best asset class,despite all the legal,financial and taxation complexities involved. There is perhaps no other investment avenue that can compare with real estate in generating high profits. Urban land is therefore most sought after,and nobody would like to part with it if they do not get the best price. This is also the reason why more urban residents are getting increasingly concerned about the master plan of their city. Master planning is essentially an exercise involving land allocation to various uses,amongst many other things. Public purpose on the one hand and private ownership on the other,public policy and individual interests,redistribution and accumulation these are the conflicts one needs to grapple with,while dealing with master planning for a city. The planner and the property owner are often at loggerheads. While the planner looks at the city as a whole,the individual looks at his own property alone. All problems originate from this diametrically opposed view. MYTH 1: ARBITRARINESS There is a popular misconception that master plans are done in an ad hoc manner. This is far from true. Master plan preparation involves collection and analysis of a wide variety of technical data: traffic situation,land suitability,soil conditions,vegetation,water and drainage,power etc. These throw up issues and problems that need to be solved. Then,based on the proposed vision,and after factoring in planning imperatives,a series of alternatives are prepared and an appropriate path chosen. In addition,planning is a also a process of dealing with uncertainties. Everything that is likely to happen in future cannot be predicted. This is the reason planning needs to be seen more as a broad framework where we accommodate things as we go along. MYTH 2: TOP DOWN APPROACH Another misconception is that master planning is a top down exercise,far removed from the realities of the day. This is again not entirely true. While the initial process starts with the knowledge and expertise that planners may have,the plan is subject to public scrutiny. Recently,when the Greater Hyderabad Plan was prepared,over 1,700 suggestions were received. The ongoing exercise of revising the Delhi Master Plan has received over 4,000 suggestions. The issue,however,is that while the planners do hold consultations,it is only a miniscule few who participate,among the millions living in the city. There are issues on both sides. The planner is often not in a position to explain the plan in a simple manner to the average citizen. The citizen is also not in a position to comprehend the voluminous document and complex maps and looks at proposals with suspicion. There is a perceptible communication gap between the planner and the people and this often aggravates the situation. Further,over a third of the population in our cities are illiterate and so cannot fully understand the master plan. The bottom up approach gets frustrated and more often than not,and participatory planning becomes the baby of the articulate few. MYTH 3: RIGIDITY Another complaint is that the plan is very rigid and does not allow for flexibility or change with time. Barring a few instances,most master plans have a change of land use system well entrenched,and the document as a whole is flexible. Just as the Constitution of India can be amended subject to its basic structure being kept intact,similarly,master plans can also be amended,so long as the basic intent of the larger public interest and environment is not hampered. MYTH 4: TIME FACTOR It is often held that master plans take a very long time to prepare and development already happens much before planning is completed. In most cities today,master plan preparation is often outsourced to consultants,who have the resources and personnel to prepare them in a time-bound manner. However,time is certainly lost when it comes to approval,since there are too many layers of intervention,mostly by elected representatives,lobbies and interest groups,who tend to hamper the finalisation process,until they get their pound of flesh. MYTH 5: LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER It is a common allegation that plans remain only on paper and are seldom implemented. This is true in most cases. The government admits that only very few cities have master plans. Those that do,seldom see implementation. There are several reasons. To begin with,the institutional mechanism for implementation is archaic. Implementation also needs coordinated effort among several agencies,who currently suffer from similar inertia. The end result of a lack of systems approach is chaos. Master plans are seldom broken down into simpler implementable projects which can be budgeted for in a sequential manner. Even if that is done,it is too little,too late. In the meantime,people find their own solutions. Lands are unauthorisedly subdivided,illegal colonies come up and houses without plans or permissions are built. Speed of implementation is the essence of the master plan and that needs a creative organisational apparatus. THE ONLY WAY: IMPLEMENT WELL Ultimately,the planners are blamed for the problems with the master plan,which are piled at their doorstep. This needs to be put in perspective. Planning,in most of the developed world is done in much the same way as it is done in our cities. Master planning knowledge and techniques have been transmitted to us from the West. Over time,we have tuned them to suit our context with a focus on inclusiveness,affordability and sustainability. The difference is that is that in developed countries,rules are followed strictly and plans are implemented sincerely. In India,we do not do that since the popularly elected leader with a limited tenure claims to know more about planning than a career planner. Political interference beyond a sustainable point has led to the failure of our implementation mechanisms. It is a widely recognised fact that cities contribute to over half the nations GDP and increasing urbanisation is the reality. There is therefore a need to complete master plans for all cities on a war footing,and implement them. That is the only way. The author is an urban expert and a professor at SPA,New Delhi.
