shelly, reply, question-wise, am copying to private
mail-list to pester friends. rgds, gita
--- shelly anand <sanand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Gita,
> As per our telecon, am enclosing the story idea and
> a few questions...
> Idea - Yamuna Riverfront Development: Pros and Cons
> The Yamuna riverfront is up for development. Right
> from the Akshardham
> temple, Commonwealth Games Village, the Riverfront
> Development Project to
> the Yamuna bio-diversity park. But, the question is
> how feasible and viable
> the idea is. Is it envrionment-friendly, whether
> such a development will be
> good or it will lead to simple chaos.
>
> 1. What do you think about the plan to have
> structural development along
> the Yamuna riverbed? What will be its impact and how
> feasible is to have
> such a development?
"Plan to have structural development" means nothing.
What is required by law and sense is Zonal Development
Plan, prepared by due process (which guarantees
careful consideration by experts, consultation with
all authorities and opportunity for public scrutiny
and comment). It is explicit requirement of law and
land policy by which Delhi's land is public land that
ZDP purpose (intended impact) is equity, including
trans-generational equity or 'sustainability', and
efficiency (beyond feasibility).
> 2. Do you think it will lead to problems like more
> pressure on the Yamuna,
> chances of floods increasing, etc. If yes, the
> reasons and details?
ZDP will solve problems. The bunch of ad-hoc schemes
being called "plan" will cause problems, since the
riverbed is huge the problems will seem trivial, the
cumulative impact of ad-hocism will be deleterious.
Also, ad-hocism cannot do justice to opportunities.
Eg, each scheme will use riverbed ground water in a
fraction of MGD, the total might add up to respectable
MGD figure for people to sit up and take note, by then
opportunity of using the riverbed resource for city
solutions might have slipped. Eg, touristy riverfront
greens, a shade of green very different from the type
(cultivation) that has been around, are maintainable
only if the river is reasonably clean, which is a
city-sewage issue that will remain after we have run
out of options of who to evict in the name of
pollution, by when there might be no cultivators who
know the riverbed. Etc.
> 3. Here in India, we are trying to copy a plan of
> developing the riverbed
> (as practiced abroad). What do you think about it
> w.r.t India and whether
> it should be adopted or not?
We are not copying any plan from anywhere. We are
allowing some fellows who happen to be in power to use
the riverbed as a personal scrap-book for
impressionistic renderings of whatever takes their
fancy. (There is nothing wrong with looking around for
ideas as long as the basis of the ZDP is premised on
the riverbed being part of the ridge-river ecosystem
with unique imperatives).
> 4. What can be major negative points about the
> so-called development plan,
> the details? Is there any positive feature as well,
> if yes, what?
There cannot be anything positive about "so-called
plan" for the riverbed. The thought of a riverbed that
has been respected for centuries of urbanism suddenly
being opened up to ad-hocism at the whim of a few is
appalling. Each of these schemes might have been
justifiable in ZDP, but the temerity of planting them
on the riverbed illegally leaves no justification for
them. All those participating in this historic drift
are doing so at the cost of their own credibility.
pompous
> 5. Lastly, going by the envrionmental and ecological
> point of view, how
> should the development be and in what form (if any)
> along the riverfront?
>
Not lastly, at the riverbed firstly. What uses are
best and what forms articulate them best can only be
arrived at in a considered and reasoned way and must
be left to ZDP, which the city must not only insist on
but also participate in through Public Notice process.
The riverbed is not a piece of prime land that
realtors know best or some eco-turf that
environmentalists know best. The clumsiness of what
has been going on lately on it has, in any case,
clearly shown that it is not the best of realtors or
environmentalists that are in control. There is no
tearing hurry to "develop" the riverbed, there is
every reason to get right. At the moment what the
riverbed seems to need most is saving from sheer
incompetence and rank opportunism.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
mail-list to pester friends. rgds, gita
--- shelly anand <sanand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Gita,
> As per our telecon, am enclosing the story idea and
> a few questions...
> Idea - Yamuna Riverfront Development: Pros and Cons
> The Yamuna riverfront is up for development. Right
> from the Akshardham
> temple, Commonwealth Games Village, the Riverfront
> Development Project to
> the Yamuna bio-diversity park. But, the question is
> how feasible and viable
> the idea is. Is it envrionment-friendly, whether
> such a development will be
> good or it will lead to simple chaos.
>
> 1. What do you think about the plan to have
> structural development along
> the Yamuna riverbed? What will be its impact and how
> feasible is to have
> such a development?
"Plan to have structural development" means nothing.
What is required by law and sense is Zonal Development
Plan, prepared by due process (which guarantees
careful consideration by experts, consultation with
all authorities and opportunity for public scrutiny
and comment). It is explicit requirement of law and
land policy by which Delhi's land is public land that
ZDP purpose (intended impact) is equity, including
trans-generational equity or 'sustainability', and
efficiency (beyond feasibility).
> 2. Do you think it will lead to problems like more
> pressure on the Yamuna,
> chances of floods increasing, etc. If yes, the
> reasons and details?
ZDP will solve problems. The bunch of ad-hoc schemes
being called "plan" will cause problems, since the
riverbed is huge the problems will seem trivial, the
cumulative impact of ad-hocism will be deleterious.
Also, ad-hocism cannot do justice to opportunities.
Eg, each scheme will use riverbed ground water in a
fraction of MGD, the total might add up to respectable
MGD figure for people to sit up and take note, by then
opportunity of using the riverbed resource for city
solutions might have slipped. Eg, touristy riverfront
greens, a shade of green very different from the type
(cultivation) that has been around, are maintainable
only if the river is reasonably clean, which is a
city-sewage issue that will remain after we have run
out of options of who to evict in the name of
pollution, by when there might be no cultivators who
know the riverbed. Etc.
> 3. Here in India, we are trying to copy a plan of
> developing the riverbed
> (as practiced abroad). What do you think about it
> w.r.t India and whether
> it should be adopted or not?
We are not copying any plan from anywhere. We are
allowing some fellows who happen to be in power to use
the riverbed as a personal scrap-book for
impressionistic renderings of whatever takes their
fancy. (There is nothing wrong with looking around for
ideas as long as the basis of the ZDP is premised on
the riverbed being part of the ridge-river ecosystem
with unique imperatives).
> 4. What can be major negative points about the
> so-called development plan,
> the details? Is there any positive feature as well,
> if yes, what?
There cannot be anything positive about "so-called
plan" for the riverbed. The thought of a riverbed that
has been respected for centuries of urbanism suddenly
being opened up to ad-hocism at the whim of a few is
appalling. Each of these schemes might have been
justifiable in ZDP, but the temerity of planting them
on the riverbed illegally leaves no justification for
them. All those participating in this historic drift
are doing so at the cost of their own credibility.
pompous
> 5. Lastly, going by the envrionmental and ecological
> point of view, how
> should the development be and in what form (if any)
> along the riverfront?
>
Not lastly, at the riverbed firstly. What uses are
best and what forms articulate them best can only be
arrived at in a considered and reasoned way and must
be left to ZDP, which the city must not only insist on
but also participate in through Public Notice process.
The riverbed is not a piece of prime land that
realtors know best or some eco-turf that
environmentalists know best. The clumsiness of what
has been going on lately on it has, in any case,
clearly shown that it is not the best of realtors or
environmentalists that are in control. There is no
tearing hurry to "develop" the riverbed, there is
every reason to get right. At the moment what the
riverbed seems to need most is saving from sheer
incompetence and rank opportunism.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail