Hi,
Sorry to barge into the debate. And I dont want to steer people away from the topic of "Petition to PM by registered architects" but cant help commenting on the 'Metro'
I am not really aware of the intricacies of the Delhi Metro but can say that
1. whether to stay on ground, over or underground is based on many factors apart from just aesthetics.
2. Our large and ever growing cities require mass transit even if the concrete bridges obscure the image. Trade off is becoming a necessity.
3.How good are our city images anyway??
4. Environmental issues and land use issues are rightly put earlier in this thread but are linked to the larger regulatory mechanism related issues/lacunae.
5. Using large chunks of land for resoruce mobilisation makes the otherwise 'financially unfeasible' Metro 'possible' for cities in india.There are very few or probabably no success stories in the world.Since mass transit is needed (is there a debate about that also??) there needs to be a clear way of making it financially viable (it is linked to keep the fares affordable to really make it the 'mass' transit). Of course land can be used as an asset but this can be done without this Hulla gulla, land use violations, faulty building permission process.Its pure project management and the responsibility of due diligence does lie with the agency handling the Metro ( on all aspetcs, legal, financial, istitutional, people related etc)
6.Regarding land use changes in the Master Plan after projects are planned (working backwards),is there another way Gita? The master plans are made by someone else, the Metro is planned by someone else so there has to be some integration. Thts probably the best people can think of :-)
Master plans have not been enforced for whatever reasons and thats a reality. I can see that on TV in Delhis case.
Sincerely looking for comments on point no 6
Best wishes
Maheep Singh Thapar
Hyderabad
"Architexturez." <interface.services@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The Petition is entirely based on out-dated facts and
> patently poorly informed ideas about transport
> planning, conservation, and land use planning (all of
> which are professional specializations not limited to
> Architects)
>
it does no such thing. it comments on design aspects and interface
aspects. these questions have been around since 1988 and will remain
relevant. they are all asked, if you read further, in a specific
megacities/megamachine narrative which is quite different from your
planning discourse (at the least it has a methodology).
> On the other hand, it
> makes no reference to issues thrown up by metro
> property development constructions proceeding without
> statutory approvals .... This is even though
> ensuring statutory approvals falls within the scope of
> architectural services and code of professional
> conduct prescribed by the Council of Architecture.
>
does not have to, this is your private axe to grind, and in no way a
part of the petition. why ought it be so? or do you intend to put your
plannerly words into everybody's collective mouth?
suggest you stay within your discourse, rather than interfere with others'.
> The Petition makes a sole prayer, for only underground
> metro. This is implicitly a prayer for more metro
> property development in the extant rationale wherein
> since elevated metro is being justified primarily on
> basis of being cheaper than underground metro and
> metro property development is being justified in terms
> of a financial plan that requires/allows raising a
> percentage of total metro cost through it.
it also makes "implicitly a prayer" to delay the metro project by many
years, as underground construction is considerably slower for technical
reasons. the delay allowing for various types of financial plans
canceling your implicit assumptions.
>
> The Petition that registered architects are being
> urged to sign thus appears to me to be a case of the
> Register of Architects being put to dubious use that
> ought to be brought to the notice of the Council.
>
how so? or do you have plannerly words on non-dubious use of the
Register of Architects? it is a public domain document, and anyone can
use it as they see fit. architects have started receiving lots of junk
mail because of the publication as well.
gita, perhaps one ought not impose one's morality on others all the time :-)
- A
(now go ban us from your list again)
_______________________________________________
mpisgmedia mailing list
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia + Planning collaborative at http://plan.architexturez.org/
---------------------------------
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Sorry to barge into the debate. And I dont want to steer people away from the topic of "Petition to PM by registered architects" but cant help commenting on the 'Metro'
I am not really aware of the intricacies of the Delhi Metro but can say that
1. whether to stay on ground, over or underground is based on many factors apart from just aesthetics.
2. Our large and ever growing cities require mass transit even if the concrete bridges obscure the image. Trade off is becoming a necessity.
3.How good are our city images anyway??
4. Environmental issues and land use issues are rightly put earlier in this thread but are linked to the larger regulatory mechanism related issues/lacunae.
5. Using large chunks of land for resoruce mobilisation makes the otherwise 'financially unfeasible' Metro 'possible' for cities in india.There are very few or probabably no success stories in the world.Since mass transit is needed (is there a debate about that also??) there needs to be a clear way of making it financially viable (it is linked to keep the fares affordable to really make it the 'mass' transit). Of course land can be used as an asset but this can be done without this Hulla gulla, land use violations, faulty building permission process.Its pure project management and the responsibility of due diligence does lie with the agency handling the Metro ( on all aspetcs, legal, financial, istitutional, people related etc)
6.Regarding land use changes in the Master Plan after projects are planned (working backwards),is there another way Gita? The master plans are made by someone else, the Metro is planned by someone else so there has to be some integration. Thts probably the best people can think of :-)
Master plans have not been enforced for whatever reasons and thats a reality. I can see that on TV in Delhis case.
Sincerely looking for comments on point no 6
Best wishes
Maheep Singh Thapar
Hyderabad
"Architexturez." <interface.services@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The Petition is entirely based on out-dated facts and
> patently poorly informed ideas about transport
> planning, conservation, and land use planning (all of
> which are professional specializations not limited to
> Architects)
>
it does no such thing. it comments on design aspects and interface
aspects. these questions have been around since 1988 and will remain
relevant. they are all asked, if you read further, in a specific
megacities/megamachine narrative which is quite different from your
planning discourse (at the least it has a methodology).
> On the other hand, it
> makes no reference to issues thrown up by metro
> property development constructions proceeding without
> statutory approvals .... This is even though
> ensuring statutory approvals falls within the scope of
> architectural services and code of professional
> conduct prescribed by the Council of Architecture.
>
does not have to, this is your private axe to grind, and in no way a
part of the petition. why ought it be so? or do you intend to put your
plannerly words into everybody's collective mouth?
suggest you stay within your discourse, rather than interfere with others'.
> The Petition makes a sole prayer, for only underground
> metro. This is implicitly a prayer for more metro
> property development in the extant rationale wherein
> since elevated metro is being justified primarily on
> basis of being cheaper than underground metro and
> metro property development is being justified in terms
> of a financial plan that requires/allows raising a
> percentage of total metro cost through it.
it also makes "implicitly a prayer" to delay the metro project by many
years, as underground construction is considerably slower for technical
reasons. the delay allowing for various types of financial plans
canceling your implicit assumptions.
>
> The Petition that registered architects are being
> urged to sign thus appears to me to be a case of the
> Register of Architects being put to dubious use that
> ought to be brought to the notice of the Council.
>
how so? or do you have plannerly words on non-dubious use of the
Register of Architects? it is a public domain document, and anyone can
use it as they see fit. architects have started receiving lots of junk
mail because of the publication as well.
gita, perhaps one ought not impose one's morality on others all the time :-)
- A
(now go ban us from your list again)
_______________________________________________
mpisgmedia mailing list
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia + Planning collaborative at http://plan.architexturez.org/
---------------------------------
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.