25.10.05: MCD fails to get funds for Walled City
heritage plans
http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/25/stories/2005102512590400.htm
NEW DELHI: The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),
the second largest civic body in the world after
Tokyo, might have prepared grand plans to revive the
heritage character of the Walled City area, but it
does not have the funds to implement ... Senior MCD
officials feel that the civic body's image as one of
the most corrupt organisations in the Capital has
proved to be a major stumbling block in its efforts to
collect funds and to impress upon possible donors.
They now feel that respectable NGOs could help them in
collecting funds ...
The entire plan for the ambitious project has been
gathering dust for a long time ... This has forced the
Corporation to change its strategy and rope in NGOs
and specialised agencies. The MCD's Heritage Society
has already prepared plans to conserve and preserve
several archaeologically-important area of the Walled
City. ...likely to be done under supervision of
specialised agencies like INTACH and Aga Khan
Foundation.
--------------
The fund-raising alliances between MCD officials and
NGOs are barely veiled, but the rest is hogwash. MCD
Plans cannot have been gathering dust for long because
its Heritage Committee was made in 2004, pursuant to
Supreme Court PIL by ngo INTACH. In separate PIL
against what Jagmohan was doing to Red Fort Supreme
Court had, on prayer of the petitioners, also
constituted a committee for a management plan also in
2004. This is unlikely to get in the way because that
PIL was filed by INTACH associates through Kapil Sibal
(now area MP). The Heritage Bill that Delhi Government
passed in 2004 and the Heritage Charter that INTACH
made (consultatively) in 2004 are also not going to
stand in the way.
What does stand in the way of MCD plans is (besides
MCD Act that does not permit them) is DD Act, under
which the framework for heritage plans for Delhi is
set out in mandatory provisions of DMP, duly detailed
out in Zonal Plans (such as F-Zone Plan notified in
1998, that also cast upon INTACH, among others,
statutory responsibility for implementation in areas
like Qutb Mehrauli, etc, which they forgot to
discharge and seem, from their current fuss-making
about aesthetics of metro corridor near Qutb, to have
forgotten altogether). In 1999 Delhi Urban Heritage
Foundation (with INTACH etc) was also duly
constituted, as a committee of the Authority of the
DDA on which GNCTD and MCD are duly and adequately
represented and which is chaired by the LG.
Being a committee under DD Act, DUHF cannot make
heritage interventions outside the ambit of the Act
and Plan. INTACH, etc, seem to have found this
constraining (perhaps even baffling after public
protest, through 1700 Public Notice responses in 2002,
etc, against their project for some international
centre in name of conservation of Sultanagarhi tomb).
They occupied the DMP2021 sub-group for conservation
(to, it seems, add Sultanagrhi scheme and ensure no
reference to DUHF in DMP2021) and showed up at public
hearing on 03.10.05 to present their
objections/suggestions to their proposals to a
so-called Board including MCD Chief Planner (as
representative, I was told, of MCD Commissioner). They
had left by the time I mentioned the request of MPISG
conveners for a joint hearing of their responses,
which include a comprehensive critique on the heritage
chapter. MCD plans thus infringe also s.11A rights. I
am additionally aggrieved by failure of Kapil Sibal's
ministry to get back to me on my comment, as an expert
(complete with reprint of a paper in respectable
international journal based on my work on plan
implementation for Walled City duly published by a
respectable foreign university followed by further
research support from the premier HUDCO).
The MCD plan is no techno-legal plan but business plan
(or, if it is preferred for love of heritage, Prawn
Malai plan) for expansion of Aga Khan business in
Humayun Tomb to Walled City. The catalyst for it has
been contrived not on basis of the so-called mandate
of MCD Heritage Committee by Supreme Court direction
but from latest High Court orders against encroachment
around Jama Masjid. While the fund-crunch report in
Hindu today calls this Walled City Heritage plan, the
fund-crunch report in Express yesterday called it Jama
Masjid redevelopment plan.
--------------
24.10.2005: Jama Masjid: MCD asks DDA for funds
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=154255
AN ORIGINAL blueprint and several HC hearings later,
the MCD has an ambitious redevelopment plan for the
Jama Masjid... the plan includes a facelift of one
side of Jama Masjid, from Ajmeri Gate upto Red Fort
and is expected to cost between Rs 35 and 40 crore.
MCD Commissioner Rakesh Mehta says ..."we do not have
the money to do this". The original plan, designed by
architect Pradeep Sachdeva, included the
beautification of the main road from Daryaganj to Red
Fort which was to be used as an approach for the
Commonwealth Games. After this, the government asked
that the lanes around Jama Masjid also be included in
the plan. Later, based on a PIL, the High Court
ordered that the encroachments around the mosque be
removed and the area beautified to draw tourists. With
the High Court order, the project was integrated - the
other three sides of the Jama Masjid and approach
roads included
--------------
Key component of this is removal of hawkers and making
plazas and kiosks for them. This is not open to MCD
except through vending committee under national policy
that it has duly adopted. It is noteworthy that
illegal hawker project with respectable NGO Manushi
that is giving MCD corrupt image a makeover, was
properly respected in IIT TRIPP funded Sajha-Munch
book of 2003 and Pradeep Sachdeva is architect
associated with IIT TRIPP which has also been
designing road sections to fit hawkers, serving in
common cause with Manushi to spare retail space
planned for them in DMP for other uses, including now
fdi, which, of course, Sanjha-Munch types oppose in
principle.
According to fund-crunch report in the Pioneer, the
beautification plan is the same as the one that
Jagmohan and Vijay Goel had made (connected also to
Pushta evictions). Kapil Sibal had appeared in court
matters against Jagmohan's plans for both conservation
and evictions and Sanjha-Munch (which did some
awareness-activity with Kapil Sibal in DMP2021 Public
Notice period, after which a baffled Sibal had
wondered what is Master Plan) is, of course, opposed
to beautification evictions by Jagmohan in principle.
--------------
22.10.05: DDA's red flag to Jama Masjid's restoration
... DDA has distanced itself from the plan and has
communicated to MCD that it is not possible to fund
the Rs 25 crore for the project. The Corporation has
asked Delhi Government to intervene. The MCD will also
seek help from the Lt Governor next week... The
Corporation has already spent lakhs of rupees in
bulldozing illegal occupations in the vicinity of
historical Masjid to give it a new ambience... given
the task to the renowned architect Pradeep Sachdeva to
plan the minutest details of the project. "We have
already conducted a topography survey of the
location," ... planned to landscape the stretch
between Jama Masjid and Red Fort on the lines of
Rajpath. It also included construction of an underpass
connecting Shanti Van to the backyards of Red Fort
making the two historical places accessible for
tourists. Shops at Meena Bazar, too were to be given a
face lift. The project was supposed to be completed in
a two-year time frame Various agencies like CPWD, DDA,
MCD, DJB and private discoms were responsible for the
developmental work. The project was initiated by
former Union Ministers Jagmohan and Vijay Goel
--------------
Jagmohan also initiated the Aga Khan business in
Humayun Tomb and the business alliance between
heritage and poverty interests is sketched in the
prose about the humiliating party there to celebrate
Aga Khan rewards:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/profession/awards/akaa/041129
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
heritage plans
http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/25/stories/2005102512590400.htm
NEW DELHI: The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),
the second largest civic body in the world after
Tokyo, might have prepared grand plans to revive the
heritage character of the Walled City area, but it
does not have the funds to implement ... Senior MCD
officials feel that the civic body's image as one of
the most corrupt organisations in the Capital has
proved to be a major stumbling block in its efforts to
collect funds and to impress upon possible donors.
They now feel that respectable NGOs could help them in
collecting funds ...
The entire plan for the ambitious project has been
gathering dust for a long time ... This has forced the
Corporation to change its strategy and rope in NGOs
and specialised agencies. The MCD's Heritage Society
has already prepared plans to conserve and preserve
several archaeologically-important area of the Walled
City. ...likely to be done under supervision of
specialised agencies like INTACH and Aga Khan
Foundation.
--------------
The fund-raising alliances between MCD officials and
NGOs are barely veiled, but the rest is hogwash. MCD
Plans cannot have been gathering dust for long because
its Heritage Committee was made in 2004, pursuant to
Supreme Court PIL by ngo INTACH. In separate PIL
against what Jagmohan was doing to Red Fort Supreme
Court had, on prayer of the petitioners, also
constituted a committee for a management plan also in
2004. This is unlikely to get in the way because that
PIL was filed by INTACH associates through Kapil Sibal
(now area MP). The Heritage Bill that Delhi Government
passed in 2004 and the Heritage Charter that INTACH
made (consultatively) in 2004 are also not going to
stand in the way.
What does stand in the way of MCD plans is (besides
MCD Act that does not permit them) is DD Act, under
which the framework for heritage plans for Delhi is
set out in mandatory provisions of DMP, duly detailed
out in Zonal Plans (such as F-Zone Plan notified in
1998, that also cast upon INTACH, among others,
statutory responsibility for implementation in areas
like Qutb Mehrauli, etc, which they forgot to
discharge and seem, from their current fuss-making
about aesthetics of metro corridor near Qutb, to have
forgotten altogether). In 1999 Delhi Urban Heritage
Foundation (with INTACH etc) was also duly
constituted, as a committee of the Authority of the
DDA on which GNCTD and MCD are duly and adequately
represented and which is chaired by the LG.
Being a committee under DD Act, DUHF cannot make
heritage interventions outside the ambit of the Act
and Plan. INTACH, etc, seem to have found this
constraining (perhaps even baffling after public
protest, through 1700 Public Notice responses in 2002,
etc, against their project for some international
centre in name of conservation of Sultanagarhi tomb).
They occupied the DMP2021 sub-group for conservation
(to, it seems, add Sultanagrhi scheme and ensure no
reference to DUHF in DMP2021) and showed up at public
hearing on 03.10.05 to present their
objections/suggestions to their proposals to a
so-called Board including MCD Chief Planner (as
representative, I was told, of MCD Commissioner). They
had left by the time I mentioned the request of MPISG
conveners for a joint hearing of their responses,
which include a comprehensive critique on the heritage
chapter. MCD plans thus infringe also s.11A rights. I
am additionally aggrieved by failure of Kapil Sibal's
ministry to get back to me on my comment, as an expert
(complete with reprint of a paper in respectable
international journal based on my work on plan
implementation for Walled City duly published by a
respectable foreign university followed by further
research support from the premier HUDCO).
The MCD plan is no techno-legal plan but business plan
(or, if it is preferred for love of heritage, Prawn
Malai plan) for expansion of Aga Khan business in
Humayun Tomb to Walled City. The catalyst for it has
been contrived not on basis of the so-called mandate
of MCD Heritage Committee by Supreme Court direction
but from latest High Court orders against encroachment
around Jama Masjid. While the fund-crunch report in
Hindu today calls this Walled City Heritage plan, the
fund-crunch report in Express yesterday called it Jama
Masjid redevelopment plan.
--------------
24.10.2005: Jama Masjid: MCD asks DDA for funds
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=154255
AN ORIGINAL blueprint and several HC hearings later,
the MCD has an ambitious redevelopment plan for the
Jama Masjid... the plan includes a facelift of one
side of Jama Masjid, from Ajmeri Gate upto Red Fort
and is expected to cost between Rs 35 and 40 crore.
MCD Commissioner Rakesh Mehta says ..."we do not have
the money to do this". The original plan, designed by
architect Pradeep Sachdeva, included the
beautification of the main road from Daryaganj to Red
Fort which was to be used as an approach for the
Commonwealth Games. After this, the government asked
that the lanes around Jama Masjid also be included in
the plan. Later, based on a PIL, the High Court
ordered that the encroachments around the mosque be
removed and the area beautified to draw tourists. With
the High Court order, the project was integrated - the
other three sides of the Jama Masjid and approach
roads included
--------------
Key component of this is removal of hawkers and making
plazas and kiosks for them. This is not open to MCD
except through vending committee under national policy
that it has duly adopted. It is noteworthy that
illegal hawker project with respectable NGO Manushi
that is giving MCD corrupt image a makeover, was
properly respected in IIT TRIPP funded Sajha-Munch
book of 2003 and Pradeep Sachdeva is architect
associated with IIT TRIPP which has also been
designing road sections to fit hawkers, serving in
common cause with Manushi to spare retail space
planned for them in DMP for other uses, including now
fdi, which, of course, Sanjha-Munch types oppose in
principle.
According to fund-crunch report in the Pioneer, the
beautification plan is the same as the one that
Jagmohan and Vijay Goel had made (connected also to
Pushta evictions). Kapil Sibal had appeared in court
matters against Jagmohan's plans for both conservation
and evictions and Sanjha-Munch (which did some
awareness-activity with Kapil Sibal in DMP2021 Public
Notice period, after which a baffled Sibal had
wondered what is Master Plan) is, of course, opposed
to beautification evictions by Jagmohan in principle.
--------------
22.10.05: DDA's red flag to Jama Masjid's restoration
... DDA has distanced itself from the plan and has
communicated to MCD that it is not possible to fund
the Rs 25 crore for the project. The Corporation has
asked Delhi Government to intervene. The MCD will also
seek help from the Lt Governor next week... The
Corporation has already spent lakhs of rupees in
bulldozing illegal occupations in the vicinity of
historical Masjid to give it a new ambience... given
the task to the renowned architect Pradeep Sachdeva to
plan the minutest details of the project. "We have
already conducted a topography survey of the
location," ... planned to landscape the stretch
between Jama Masjid and Red Fort on the lines of
Rajpath. It also included construction of an underpass
connecting Shanti Van to the backyards of Red Fort
making the two historical places accessible for
tourists. Shops at Meena Bazar, too were to be given a
face lift. The project was supposed to be completed in
a two-year time frame Various agencies like CPWD, DDA,
MCD, DJB and private discoms were responsible for the
developmental work. The project was initiated by
former Union Ministers Jagmohan and Vijay Goel
--------------
Jagmohan also initiated the Aga Khan business in
Humayun Tomb and the business alliance between
heritage and poverty interests is sketched in the
prose about the humiliating party there to celebrate
Aga Khan rewards:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/profession/awards/akaa/041129
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com