# How will India's cities manage the current wave of urbanization?



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

This is an interesting article focusing on Lucknow, but dealing with the general problems of urbanization across India's growing ranks of million-plus person metro areas:

Megacities Threaten to Choke India



> Across India, poor migrants keep streaming into cities like Lucknow, many of which are woefully mismanaged and ill-equipped to handle the influx. India has at least 41 cities with more than one million people, up from 23 two decades ago. A half dozen others will soon join the megacity list...
> 
> Lucknow offers a case study of the challenges India's newer metropolises face... As the capital of Uttar Pradesh, India's most-populous state, Lucknow has attracted hundreds of thousands of migrants from rural areas, swelling the city's population. Yet the city hasn't completed any major new sewage infrastructure since before the country won independence in 1947. As much as 70% of residents don't have sewage service, leaving much of the waste to flow directly into the main river, the Gomti, which has become a stinking cesspool.
> 
> ...


What can be done about all this? What is the best way for countries like India to manage these mass migrations into the cities?


----------



## Hindustani (Jul 9, 2004)

This has already become a huge problem. 

Bombay nearing 20 million
Calcutta nearing 16 million
Delhi nearing 15 million
Madras nearing 10 million

Hyderabad & B'lore nearing 7.5 million

India's megacities need massive infrastructure overhaul which is not happening. They all getting metros & flyovers but not enough. All the wires needed to be run underground. Proper housing, underground drainage thru out, safe and clean drinking water. fully equiped sewer facilities. they are all lacking. not good.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

india's biggest problem is not bombay/calcutta/delhi. its the sub 3 million cities that are turning into the real hell-holes as their town planning is still stuck in small town mode


----------



## BrickellResidence (Feb 4, 2008)

the most chaotic cities in the world even worse than latin american of course


----------



## rosn19 (Oct 10, 2008)

I can't really understand how India is managing its cities with such large population at this moment. Urban centres of India need a serious make over right away.


----------



## rosn19 (Oct 10, 2008)

Hindustani said:


> This has already become a huge problem.
> 
> Bombay nearing 20 million
> Calcutta nearing 16 million
> ...


Where is all the GDP money going? India having such a big economy should have better cities, I mean China has a bigger population and their cities are "well" organized.


----------



## dnobsemajdnob (Jan 29, 2009)

I think that India will manage well, and its cities will thrive.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

rosn19 said:


> Where is all the GDP money going? India having such a big economy should have better cities, I mean China has a bigger population and their cities are "well" organized.


For one, China as a very rather ethnically & culturally homegenious centralized autocracy is much better organized than India, which is more more heterogenious, fragmented & democratic. Its a lot easier to make the Chinese trains run on time than the Indian ones!


----------



## zenith_suv (Apr 18, 2008)

I don't know if this is a solution but Suburbs have been developing at breakneck speeds , especially for the land locked cities.

For mumbai there is Navi Mumbai and Thane.

Delhi has Gurgaon , Noida Manesar etc

The suburbs are becoming service hubs for companies and therefore a lot of the working middle class are shifting outside of the city.

Realty prices in main cities are going through the roof and migrating workers from poor areas is a problem but curbing migration is not a solution in the long run.


----------



## Marathaman (Jul 24, 2007)

India won't manage anything. The chaos will resolve itself into some sort of order eventually.

When was the last time the native Indians ran their own cities? A millennium ago. 

It takes time to imbibe the spirit of urban citizenship, even more so to a recently-migrated rural population.

For those who are keen on comparing with China, sorry, but we are not going to have a cultural revolution anytime soon.


----------



## Sher (Apr 28, 2003)

when immigrants from mainland china fled to hong kong in dozen back in the late 40s, public housing towers were established and hence became popular as you can see what is now in the city. 

well, i'm sure india have their own ways of solving this similar issue.
afterall, those public housing towers aren't for everyone, especially those from the rural areas where air is pure and land is green.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

India probably needs 30 - 40 years of massive development before they become a fully-fledged first world nation. Things would be running a lot smoother if it wasn't a democracy (Culcutta goes on strike every few days and the city stops, for instance) but as they are, development will take more time. 

I would love to see a clean, modern and democratic India. The country should be aiming towards the future, away from the ills of the past. The caste system should be thrown out and India should play a greater role in world politics.


----------



## niknak (Sep 30, 2008)

brickellresidence said:


> the most chaotic cities in the world even worse than latin american of course



Indian cities might be more chaotic than Latin American ones (because there are more people) but Indian cities are a LOT safer than any major city in Latin America!

No drug wars in Indian cities.


----------



## Marathaman (Jul 24, 2007)

niknak said:


> Indian cities might be more chaotic than Latin American ones (because there are more people) but Indian cities are a LOT safer than any major city in Latin America!
> 
> No drug wars in Indian cities.


Very true. Indian slums may be dirty, but they are very safe too.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

^^ Yup. I was struck by the amount of barbed wire I saw everywhere in San Jose and Puntarenas. Costa Rica is pretty developed for a Latin American nation as well.


----------



## niknak (Sep 30, 2008)

Yeah I've been to Panama, Quito, Rio, & Sao Paulo...

Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are comparable with big Indian cities BUT when it comes to safety, Indian cities are 15 times more safe!! I've been in slums in all these cities and you cant go into a Brazilian slum alone because you WILL get hurt & robbed. On the contrary, Indian cities are much safer. Even in the slums- there is very very little chance of being robbed. I'd rather have safety at the cost of a little more chaos.

Plus, Sao Paulo traffic can not be compared to any city in India!! Traffic is horrendous in Sao Paulo!


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

Marathaman said:


> India won't manage anything. The chaos will resolve itself into some sort of order eventually.


the reason why things are not going to change here anytime soon. our fatalistic attitude of 'whatever will happen will happen'. there is zero planning or use of scientific methods to improve our cities. everyone is working towards their own selfish goals - builders, squatters, politicians, bureaucrats, citizens, etc


----------



## Marathaman (Jul 24, 2007)

Bombay Boy said:


> the reason why things are not going to change here anytime soon. our fatalistic attitude of 'whatever will happen will happen'. there is zero planning or use of scientific methods to improve our cities. everyone is working towards their own selfish goals - builders, squatters, politicians, bureaucrats, citizens, etc


Look, our cities aren't cities as much as a bunch of mutually isolated gated communities with slums in between. There is no sense of belonging with the city, rather the sense of belonging lies within your caste/religious grouping.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

gated communities? which city are you talking about? delhi?


----------



## India101 (Jul 22, 2008)

I'm sure if our cities get too over populated we just build outwards. But Mumbai being an island some people will have to move back to the mainland before the city explodes with humans.


----------



## fri (May 2, 2009)

tablemtn said:


> What is the best way for countries like India to manage these mass migrations into the cities?


Build more cities!


----------



## Marathaman (Jul 24, 2007)

fri said:


> Build more cities!


The last major city built by Indians (Vijayanagar) today lies in ruins. India's major commercial centers were either built by the British or by the Islamic rulers that preceded them. 
To cut a long story short, Indians have no clue how to build a modJern city from scratch.

Here's a quote from Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery of India: 

_ After Timur's sack of Delhi, North India remained weak and divided up. South India was better off, and the largest and most powerful of the southern kingdoms was Vijayanagar. This state and city attracted many of the Hindu refugees from the north. From contemporary accounts, it appears that the city was rich and very beautiful--The city is such that eye has not seen nor ear heard of any place resembling it upon earth", says Abdur-Razzak from Central Asia. There were arcades and magnificent galleries for the bazaars, and rising above them all was the palace of the king surrounded by "many rivulets and streams flowing through channels of cut stone, polished and even." The whole city was full of gardens, and because of them, as an Italian visitor in 1420, Nicolo Conti, writes, the circumference of the city was sixty miles. A later visitor was Paes, a Portuguese who came in 1522 after having visited the Italian cities of the Renaissance. The city of Vijayanagar, he says, is as "large as Rome and very beautiful to the sight"; it is full of charm and wonder with its innumerable lakes and waterways and fruit gardens. It is "the best-provided city in the world" and "everything abounds." The chambers of the palace were a mass of ivory, with roses and lotuses carved in ivory at the top--"it is so rich and beautiful that you would hardly find anywhere, another such."_

Difficult to believe this considering the state of modern Indian cities.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

1/3 land eara of china, but live the similar population. to go for unbanization, i think india should build more infrustructure, highways,bridges, to connect those large cities. more and more factories, towns will rise around expressways. but the problem is india goverment seems lack of money. can let private company join .


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

Marathaman said:


> The last major city built by Indians (Vijayanagar) today lies in ruins.


new bombay? 3 million people is pretty big


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Marathaman said:


> Very true. Indian slums may be dirty, but they are very safe too.



As I understand, what look like slums, or even are in fact slums, have very well developed, elaborate social/family networks that keep the crime rate down & are integral to the functioning of India's cities, its a very ancient civilization.


----------



## Get Smart (Oct 6, 2008)

oliver999 said:


> 1/3 land eara of china, but live the similar population. to go for unbanization, i think india should build more infrustructure, highways,bridges, to connect those large cities. more and more factories, towns will rise around expressways. but the problem is india goverment seems lack of money. can let private company join .


true, but India's govt also lack vision


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

India's cities have the potential to sink hopelessly downward, or continue to develop fast enough to absorb the mass of humanity that threatens to swamp them. 3 of the 10 largest metros are already Indian and India is still rapidly urbanizing. 

There are simply too many variables to predict how this will unfold. It's a miracle that things aren't worse than they are and gives one hope that India will manage this transformation far better than is the experience elsewhere.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Who knows, but I hope for the best. What they are going through has happened all over the West. Check out pics of New York or Chicago from 100 years ago when the mass immigration happened, there was massive overcrowding and poverty. They ended up fine.


----------



## niknak (Sep 30, 2008)

Xusein said:


> Who knows, but I hope for the best. What they are going through has happened all over the West. Check out pics of New York or Chicago from 100 years ago when the mass immigration happened, there was massive overcrowding and poverty. They ended up fine.



Yup! America was exactly in the same position (third world country, lots of urbanization, crazy cities, etc. ) once upon a time.

Now, Indian cities will go through the same metamorphosis that the US went through and its cities will emerge to be on par with the rest of the world in a couple decades.


This is NYC:


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

niknak said:


> Yeah I've been to Panama, Quito, Rio, & Sao Paulo...
> 
> Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are comparable with big Indian cities BUT when it comes to safety, Indian cities are 15 times more safe!! I've been in slums in all these cities and you cant go into a Brazilian slum alone because you WILL get hurt & robbed. On the contrary, Indian cities are much safer. Even in the slums- there is very very little chance of being robbed. I'd rather have safety at the cost of a little more chaos.
> 
> Plus, Sao Paulo traffic can not be compared to any city in India!! Traffic is horrendous in Sao Paulo!


Interesting.

India, with a billion inhabitants doesn't have any unsafe city?


----------



## rosn19 (Oct 10, 2008)

eklips said:


> Interesting.
> 
> India, with a billion inhabitants doesn't have any unsafe city?


i find that hard to believe too! i mean, even in cities of the USA, UK, Canada, europe and many other countries there is bad crime areas


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

eklips said:


> Interesting.
> 
> India, with a billion inhabitants doesn't have any unsafe city?


there are a few, mostly in north india

on a whole though india is quite safe for personal security. most indians are not very aggressive and the social networks in slums dont allow crime to fester. democracy and little allowances like allowing all kinds of festivals to be celebrated even if it causes public inconvenience or breaks some laws also keeps people from getting socially violent or feeling 'exploited' or 'cheated' by the establishment


----------



## Marathaman (Jul 24, 2007)

Bombay Boy said:


> new bombay? 3 million people is pretty big


Ah, well, I didn't consider New Bombay, or Dwarka in Delhi for that matter. But IMO New Bombay is just an extension of Bombay.


----------



## Marathaman (Jul 24, 2007)

oliver999 said:


> 1/3 land eara of china, but live the similar population. to go for unbanization, i think india should build more infrustructure, highways,bridges, to connect those large cities. more and more factories, towns will rise around expressways. but the problem is india goverment seems lack of money. can let private company join .


The vast majority of Chinese live in the rice-growing eastern portion of the country. The rest is mountains/desert with very low density.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

What i know is that when cities get richer, they look nicer and much more organized... So it's only a question of time for indian cities... it it true for every cities (with some exception like tokyo that stays chaotic because not street name...)... also i surely don't want indian cities to look like chinese ones, tons of concrete without history on kilometers... it would simply be a bad taste for whole indo-european world ('cause i consider european looking cities to be sister of indian ones, with historical buildings and so on...)


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

maybe in 40 years all 3 rd world nations will be first world ? 
what do you think ?


----------



## thecarlost (Nov 6, 2005)

eklips said:


> Interesting.
> 
> India, with a billion inhabitants doesn't have any unsafe city?





rosn19 said:


> i find that hard to believe too! i mean, even in cities of the USA, UK, Canada, europe and many other countries there is bad crime areas


Not too hard to believe. Still nowadays, India society has a very strong religious base. Instantly implies that social values are ruled by banning crime and vices. As for June 14th 2009 (GMT -4.5)


----------



## Mynameischarlie (Apr 14, 2008)

Currently with 1.2 billion brains + 2.4 strong hands I don't see a problem why India can't solve the problems.

Go India!


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

aaabbbccc said:


> maybe in 40 years all 3 rd world nations will be first world ?
> what do you think ?


maybe 100 years.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Mekky II said:


> also i surely don't want indian cities to look like chinese ones, tons of concrete without history on kilometers... it would simply be a bad taste for whole indo-european world ('cause i consider european looking cities to be sister of indian ones, with historical buildings and so on...)


If you mean this one(a north chinese city)


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

Mekky II said:


> I found an example..
> 
> Almere in Netherlands...
> 
> ...


great example, 185,000 people is the population of a small town in china/india. :nuts:

there's newly-built european-style towns all over shanghai to house small populations like those, but they are merely tiny blip in the millions of buildings being constructed.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2006/dec/shanghai/shanghai_suburbs.html


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

But that doesn't change the "style"... Almere looks pleasant to live... I don't know why a city 10 times bigger would not be able to get this pleasant feelings, it's all about urban planning...


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

bobbycuzin said:


> there's newly-built european-style towns all over shanghai to house small populations like those, but they are merely tiny blip in the millions of buildings being constructed.


particlez would say Shanghaï is an anomaly since it had european influences :lol:


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

Mekky II said:


> particlez would say Shanghaï is an anomaly since it had european influences :lol:


all those "european-style" towns in shanghai were built in the past 10 years. it illustrates the difference between building a european-style town for a small population compared to building 1 million+ cities based on the few "historical buildings" you keep mentioning, which just isn't numerically possible.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Historical buildings looks not so bad or completely lost surrended by new buildings


----------



## kronik (Aug 12, 2004)

Marathaman said:


> I wish the government took steps to preserve the traditional riverbank cities like Mathura, Kashi (Varanasi), Ayodhya etc.
> 
> The structure of these cities is unique, and needs to be studied in order to conserve and preserve it.
> 
> ...


There was a recent ad in the newspapers about the Ganges River Basin Authority. I googled it up and found that it was announced in February 2009, but everything was put on hold for the elections. Now the government has picked up where it left off, and I pray to The Ganges that they don't slow down. 

The authority will be formed under the Ministry of Environment & Forests

Ganga River Basin Authority for Comprehensive Management of the Ganga Basin 

The need for revamping the Ganga cleaning program was being widely recognised. Hitherto, the implementation has been piecemeal and focussed more on municipal sewage. The problem is compounded by inadequate flows. It was felt that a comprehensive response is necessary, covering water quality and flow, sustainable access, prevention and control of pollution, food and energy security, in the form of a national mission by giving the Ganga the status of a national river. 

Accordingly, the Central Government has decided to give the Ganga the status of a ‘National River’ and set up a ‘National Ganga River Basin Authority’ as an empowered planning, financing monitoring and coordinating authority for the Ganga River under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 

The Authority will be chaired by *the Prime Minister* and have as its members, the *Chief Ministers* of the states through which the Ganga flows viz. *Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal.* The *Ministers of Environment & Forests, Finance, Urban Development, Water Resources, Power, Science & Technology* and the *Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission* will also be Members. The Authority may co-opt one or more Chief Ministers from any of the States having major tributaries of the river Ganga. The Authority may also co-opt upto five members who are experts in the fields of river conservation, hydrology, environmental engineering, social mobilization and such other fields. 

The Authority will be vested with appropriate powers to carry out its functions. It will be a planning, financing, monitoring and coordinating authority for strengthening the collective efforts of the Central and the State Governments for effective abatement of pollution and conservation of the river Ganga.

Its functions will include:-

• Development of river basin management plan and regulation of activities aimed at the prevention, control and abatement of pollution in the river Ganga to maintain its water quality, and to take such other measures relevant to river ecology and management in the Ganga Basin States;

• Maintenance of minimum ecological flows in the river Ganga with the aim of ensuring water quality and environmentally sustainable development;

• Measures necessary for planning, financing and execution of programmes for abatement of pollution in the river Ganga including augmentation of sewerage infrastructure, catchment area treatment, protection of flood plains, creating public awareness and such other measures for promoting environmentally sustainable river conservation;

• Collection, analysis and dissemination of information relating to environmental pollution in the river Ganga;

• Investigations and research regarding problems of environmental pollution and conservation of the river Ganga;

• Creation of special purpose vehicles, as appropriate, for implementation of works vested with the Authority;

• Promotion of water conservation practices including recycling and reuse, rain water harvesting, and decentralised sewage treatment systems;

• Monitoring and review of the implementation of various programmes or activities taken up for prevention, control and abatement of pollution in the river Ganga; and

• Issuance of directions under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for the purpose of exercising and performing all or any of its functions.
----------------------------------------------------------

While the conservation of heritage structures is not mentioned, I believe the paths will cross eventually because of the many old, historic buildings in major towns on the river with outdated sewage systems and infrastructure. That is a very high-powered committee, and hopefully they will take some very high-powered decisions.


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

Mekky II said:


> Historical buildings looks not so bad or completely lost surrended by new buildings


yes, except it's only a tiny part of shanghai










it's not numerically possible for historical buildings to support the rapid urbanization of newly-developed cities. india is no exception.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

lucky, tourists focalize on most beautiful parts p


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

bobbycuzin said:


> it's not numerically possible for historical buildings to support the rapid urbanization of newly-developed cities. india is no exception.


Does it mean that they should be torn down though and that those who live in them be displaced?

Let's not mix different issues, preserving heritage, respecting the right of the people who live in a specific district and it's social fabric with building new housing for new populations and doing it good.

Both of you are mixing all of this up and are oversimplifying everything, on both sides.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

bobbycuzin said:


> the initial stages of urbanization set the foundation of a city. it's also when the city expands the fastest and therefore require the most rapid increase in building construction.


Yes, it does set the foundation of a city, and it is (technically) when the city expands fastest _relative_ to the population / construction before the expansion. However, a rate of 5x for a population of 20 000 would still constitute less of an overall population increase than a rate of x for a population of 1, 000, 000. From what I've observed, residence is constructed based on the quantity of individuals, not the rate at which said quantity is growing at. 

For example, a city of 1, 000 000 growing at rate x would have a greater net increase of inhabitants than a city of 20 000 growing at rate 5x - not a greater net % increase, but a greater net increase. Don't confuse the two.
A greater net increase would obviously mean more impact on construction in the city.




> therefore the latter stages require much less building construction in proportion to the city's current population, and the buildings are generally built on the outer fringes of the city too. just look at the peripheral areas of paris to see the difference in buildings built from the initial stages of urbanization vs the later stages.


Yes - the latter stages require much less construction relative to the current population - but in absolute terms, it still requires more construction. Paris was used as an example because it was growing at a similar rate in both the 1860s and 1960s (while the population was larger in the 1960s). The rate of growth is based on the present population, of course, so the hypothetical pressure to construct would be equal at both points in time, if we use such a linear set of criteria.



> it's not numerically possible for historical buildings to support the rapid urbanization of newly-developed cities. india is no exception.


I don't see how this has any effect on the subject at hand. Just because there will be more new buildings relative to historic buildings doesn't mean that the historical structures should be replaced with new ones.


----------



## khoojyh (Aug 14, 2005)

lets see how India manage historical building when their country development fast enough like China


----------



## khoojyh (Aug 14, 2005)

Brazil urbanization was boom, how they handle it? many Brazilian cities turned into huge concrete jail especially São Paulo. 

historical building surrounded by modern building can be found in any huge urban like New York City (Manhattan), Shanghai (Puxi), Singapore (CBD)


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Their developpement is fast ... It's not the problem.

Comparing Sao Paulo with other cities was a nice try


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

eklips said:


> Does it mean that they should be torn down though and that those who live in them be displaced?
> 
> Let's not mix different issues, preserving heritage, respecting the right of the people who live in a specific district and it's social fabric with building new housing for new populations and doing it good.
> 
> Both of you are mixing all of this up and are oversimplifying everything, on both sides.


i'm only arguing the point i originally responded to. whoever brought up tearing-down buildings was completely going off-topic.

mekky wants indian cities to look more like european ones (streets lined with historical buildings) instead of chinese ones (skyscrapers with no history). i'm merely telling him it's not numerically possible for a country of over 1 billion in their initial stages of urbanization. there simply aren't enough historical buildings to be renovated in which ever way to support the growing population.

the main point here is europe industrialized and urbanized at a completely different time period (in the past) compared to china/india (present). the buildinsg lining the streets of major european cities were built in the past (in comparison to the skyscrapers built today) which is the only reason why they are considered "historical"...it's not some kind of conscious decision to be made here, it's simply about what time the intial stages of urbanization occurs in a country.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

bobbycuzin said:


> mekky wants indian cities to look more like european ones (streets lined with historical buildings) instead of chinese ones (skyscrapers with no history). i'm merely telling him it's not numerically possible for a country of over 1 billion in their initial stages of urbanization. there simply aren't enough historical buildings to be renovated in which ever way to support the growing population.
> .


I'm not sure about China, but I do know that many Indian cities (Delhi and Bombay, for example) are finding much of their skyscraper development outside of the historical core. That's the point Mekky and I are making. European cities also have skyscraper development, but it is usually outside of the historical centre of the city.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Mahratta said:


> I'm not sure about China, but I do know that many Indian cities (Delhi and Bombay, for example) are finding much of their skyscraper development outside of the historical core. That's the point Mekky and I are making. European cities also have skyscraper development, but it is usually outside of the historical centre of the city.


But not in every city. Frankfurt is an example of a skyscraper development in the inner city. Of course, it's because frankfurt has only very few historical buildings.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Chrissib said:


> But not in every city. Frankfurt is an example of a skyscraper development in the inner city. Of course, it's because frankfurt has only very few historical buildings.


Of course there are exceptions, but you get the point I'm trying to make - most European cities planned around their historical areas rather than replacing the areas.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Chrissib said:


> But not in every city. Frankfurt is an example of a skyscraper development in the inner city. Of course, it's because frankfurt has only very few historical buildings.


You forget about the war... cities like Rotterdam or Warsaw were razed, so they can built skyscrapers in central core, but even with this, both cities managed to recreate actively historical buildings and districts. Frankfürt too was severaly damaged, but not every european cities that were damaged decided to built high buildings in their centres like Frankfürt did... Berlin is an example.

From my personnal knowledge, Le Havre is a city fully rebuilt after WW2, now the city has 200,000 inhabitants and is part of UNESCO world heritage for its work with concrete.

How it looks (quite flat) :


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

^^ you're using tiny cities of 200,000 compared to how many people india's cities will have to support in the future. china already has more than 100 cities with 1 million+ people (and the country is still less than 50% urbanized) and india is on pace to overtake china in terms of population in the near future. that should give you an idea of how large the cities will have to be. you just haven't factored in simple arithmetic into any one of your examples of how india plans to construct a country full of european-style cities full of historical buildings?


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

bobbycuzin said:


> ^^ you're using tiny cities of 200,000 compared to how many people india's cities will have to support in the future. china already has more than 100 cities with 1 million+ people (and the country is still less than 50% urbanized) and india is on pace to overtake china in terms of population in the near future. that should give you an idea of how large the cities will have to be. you just haven't factored in simple arithmetic into any one of your examples of how india plans to construct a country full of european-style cities full of historical buildings?


Mahratta answered you quite well, preserving old city in central core, and build around it in suburbs, now what i wondered since my first post : Will we see lot of buildings between 5 and 10 floors (majority of Paris buildings are between 6 and 8 floors), or huge towers of 15, 20 or even 30 floors everywhere around indian cities and so a "wave" of concrete ? 

I have something either to say, Japan started early urbanization, but historical buildings don't seem to be that important for them, to always modernize cities seem something necessary, even by destroying old stuffs... I think east asia work maybe like this, always destroying to rebuilt... it's in fact a bit the history of china, be divided, and reunited, in different periods of its history, so architecture works similar, destroy, rebuilt...


----------



## khoojyh (Aug 14, 2005)

then, India should follow East Asia urbanization style or Western style?


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ khoojyh*

^^ IMHO, India should follow the East Asian style of urbanization. It is, by far, the most sustainable urban-planning style I've seen.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

If there is will a country in Asia that don't use east asian urbanisation, it's well Philippines...

Manilla


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

khoojyh said:


> then, India should follow East Asia urbanization style or Western style?


It should do it's own way. A lot of privately owned mid-rise buildings represent the Indian culture better than centrally planned commieblocks. India will look more like middle eastern cities than Chinese cities. And I think it's the better way, because a lot of mid-rise buildings look far more urban than planned commieblock-settlements. They also create a higher density.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Chrissib said:


> It should do it's own way. A lot of privately owned mid-rise buildings represent the Indian culture better than centrally planned commieblocks. India will look more like middle eastern cities than Chinese cities. And I think it's the better way, because a lot of mid-rise buildings look far more urban than planned commieblock-settlements. They also create a higher density.


Aye. It seems that Indian cities are becoming more midrise-heavy, with the occaisonal highrise. It could be paralleled with the development of Japanese cities.


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

lol, so now you guys are promoting the mass construction of mid-rise buildings instead of creating cities out of the already existing "historical" homes?

btw, shanghai has old low-rise buildings too...i honestly don't see why you would prefer them over skyscrapers


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Mahratta said:


> Aye. It seems that Indian cities are becoming more midrise-heavy, with the occaisonal highrise. It could be paralleled with the development of Japanese cities.


Yes, like Japan, India was a free society since WWII. There is no planning-tradition like in China. Maybe that's better, the people in the former GDR are fleeing out of the highrise-quarters to either the historical core of the city or to new created detatched house settlements. If the chinese could afford it, they may also want to live in more 'individual' houses and not any more in uniform commieblocks.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

bobbycuzin said:


> btw, shanghai has old low-rise buildings too...i honestly don't see why you would prefer them over skyscrapers


Assurely we don't like those of this picture, it looks ugly... And like i said, look those 30+ floors towers near this district, it looks too massive and not homogeneous... and the worse, we don't see trees or large green areas... the picture you show us looks more a shanti town that old districts that you could find in India, with streets bordered with trees and often green parks around...

Also, you show us old low rise buildings outside the central core of Shanghaï, how can you link it to low-rise buildings in centre of indian cites or european ones, or even south-east asian cities, Bangkok is full of wonderful low rise buildings in the centre of city...


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Homogeneity of Mumbai :


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Mekky II said:


> Homogeneity of Mumbai :


Looks way better than Shanghai.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Why not watching what happens in reality inside indian cities suburbs ?
Afterall if we want to know how will manage indian cities the future waves of urbanisation, we can already watch what is currently done !

Here is Navi Mumbai, a planned city from 1972 in the suburb of Mumbai, the city passed from 2001 to 2009 from 700,000 to 1,200,000 inhabitants and is currently the 30th largest indian city :










It looks quite special from my point of view, not east asian or european but well indian with lot of mughal influence. Either, it looks less a "block" and more a mix of different shaped buildings, we truely find here the diversity of indian culture...

So, will it continue like this everywhere ? ...


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

Mekky II said:


> Assurely we don't like those of this picture, it looks ugly... And like i said, look those 30+ floors towers near this district, it looks too massive and not homogeneous... and the worse, we don't see trees or large green areas... the picture you show us looks more a shanti town that old districts that you could find in India, with streets bordered with trees and often green parks around...
> 
> Also, you show us old low rise buildings outside the central core of Shanghaï, how can you link it to low-rise buildings in centre of indian cites or european ones, or even south-east asian cities, Bangkok is full of wonderful low rise buildings in the centre of city...


i showed you the OLD buildings that are being replaced by new construction all over china. you act like those are the type of buildings that should be preserved?

plz show me an aerial of an indian city showing how many "historical" buildings there are in comparison to new construction needed to house its 1 billion+ population?

here's a reference to how much new construction is needed to house china's cities with the country still less than 50% urbanized...


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

bobbycuzin said:


> i showed you the OLD buildings that are being replaced by new construction all over china. you act like those are the type of buildings that should be preserved?


Now i know, you are joking !

Show us a true old district like we "still" can find in small villages along the Yangtse... (Shanghaï developped really late and symbolizes the modern china, it's not an old city...)


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

Mekky II said:


> Now i know, you are joking !
> 
> Show us a true old district like we "still" can find in small villages along the Yangtse... (Shanghaï developped really late and symbolizes the modern china, it's not an old city...)


how old are we talking about? the low-rise pics i showed you are no different than these beijing hutongs which have been around many centuries





















like i said, show me an aerial of the historical buildings in india's cities compared to the amount of newly constructed buildings they will need for their 1 billion+ population?


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

bobbycuzin said:


> how old are we talking about? the low-rise pics i showed you are no different than these beijing hutongs which have been around many centuries
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._seen_from_Drum_Tower_Beijing_august_2007.JPG
> http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/08/hutong2.jpg
> ...


It looks more close from my imagination !

This is historical buildings in China (and we are really far from what you show us...) :


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

you can find architecture like that all over china, but instead of people living in them, they are being preserved for tourism purposes. the population in china is over 1 billion now compared to only a few hundred million back then, so people obviously have to live in newly constructed buildings now.

but for the 3rd time:
show me an aerial of the historical buildings in india's cities compared to the amount of newly constructed buildings they will need for their 1 billion+ population?

your entire argument was how india's cities should look "historical" in comparison to chinese cities...


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

bobbycuzin said:


> like i said, show me an aerial of the historical buildings in india's cities compared to the amount of newly constructed buildings they will need for their 1 billion+ population?


Here is Delhi (you can see green areas) :


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

Mekky II said:


> Here is Delhi (you can see green areas) :


what do green areas have to do with historical buildings? :crazy:


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

What really interests me is, how will chinese cities look like when China is developed? Will the people move out of the highrises to mid- or low-rises or will they stay? 

In the classical developed countries, like NA, Europe or Japan, the majority líves in mid- or lowrises. Is China unique in city-planning?


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

China will simply take more time to look like Taiwan... :lol:


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

bobbycuzin said:


> what do green areas have to do with historical buildings? :crazy:


Historical districts of India are often more green, i said it in an earlier post... you see on the aerial view new dense suburbs in south, north and east...


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

Mekky II said:


> Historical districts of India are often more green, i said it in an earlier post... you see on the aerial view new dense suburbs in south, north and east...


we're talking about historical buildings, not "districts" with grass growing that you assume to be historical from looking at a satellite image.

an example of an aerial would be this this (mumbai):









notice how you can see the buildings unlike the satellite image...

if you can't find aerials showing the abundance of "historical" buildings, why would you expect indian cities to somehow look more "historical" in the future than the present?


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

bobbycuzin said:


> if you can't find aerials showing the abundance of "historical" buildings, why would you expect indian cities to somehow look more "historical" in the future than the present?


because indians will preserve historical buildings and put them in highlights, eclipsing new buildings without architectural importance, like european cities did with their historical buildings... Prague suburbs are full of mid-rise buildings without much importance, but central city is a truely a jewel...

But look this, it's the largest hindu temple of the world and was inaugurated in 2005 in Delhi, maybe it could give you an idea of what indians are able to do to look "historical", a such large construction can not be eclipsed easily by modern constructions if they don't have a signifiant architecture...


----------



## Whiteeclipse (Mar 31, 2005)

khoojyh said:


> then, India should follow East Asia urbanization style or Western style?


What's the difference between East Asian and Western European urbanization?


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

bobbycuzin said:


> if you can't find aerials showing the abundance of "historical" buildings, why would you expect indian cities to somehow look more "historical" in the future than the present?


Firstly - Mumbai is a rather "new" city compared to other cities in India. Secondly, most historical development in Mumbai is in the South of the city. The rest can be seen as outside of the historical core.


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

Mekky II said:


> because indians will preserve historical buildings and put them in highlights, eclipsing new buildings without architectural importance, like european cities did with their historical buildings... Prague suburbs are full of mid-rise buildings without much importance, but central city is a truely a jewel...
> 
> But look this, it's the largest hindu temple of the world and was inaugurated in 2005 in Delhi, maybe it could give you an idea of what indians are able to do to look "historical", a such large construction can not be eclipsed easily by modern constructions if they don't have a signifiant architecture...


these are historical sites, not buildings that blend in with the actual cities, it's really no different than having a forbidden city in the middle of beijing. you're forgetting that india will need numerous (100+) cities over 1 million population if the country is to urbanize. a few major historical sites will only affect a few cities.



Mahratta said:


> Firstly - Mumbai is a rather "new" city compared to other cities in India. Secondly, most historical development in Mumbai is in the South of the city. The rest can be seen as outside of the historical core.


is that even a real picture...

anyway, i've yet to see an aerial of how abundant these "historical" buildings are in india where new construction won't overshadow them...

you guys are either really overestimating the amount of historical structures india has or completely underestimating the number of new buildings that will need to be constructed if india is to urbanize. seems to be both.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

But i wonder either why you see the addition of new buildings near historical ones as conflictual ?? Is it a problem in China ? maybe brutalism architecture is the problem there...


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

bobbycuzin said:


> is that even a real picture...


Why wouldn't it be? It's a small image of an HDR image from flickr. That's why the quality isn't optimal. 



> anyway, i've yet to see an aerial of how abundant these "historical" buildings are in india where new construction won't overshadow them...


First off - you seem to simply pass of photographs that are posted, so there's no real point in posting anything to show you.
Second - in most aerials, the details on the buildings aren't particularly noticeable. How can you tell an 'old' building from a 'new' one? What constitutes 'old'? 

Most buildings on Marine Drive, for example, were built in the 1920s and 1930s. There's quite a few of these art deco gems, and a refurbishment project has been going on for a while.

Again - Mumbai is not the best example to use - however, there are sections of Mumbai from Victorian times (some decrepit) with little to no architectural modifications. Don't ask for pictures - google them yourself or look on SSC India - since you seem to like doubting that images are actually...well...images. 



> you guys are either really overestimating the amount of historical structures india has or completely underestimating the number of new buildings that will need to be constructed if india is to urbanize. seems to be both.


You're missing the point. Nobody is saying that there should be MORE historical buildings than modern ones in a city. Nobody is saying that there should ONLY be historical buildings in a city.

We're saying that in historical areas of a city, the existing buildings should be preserved, and the density of a developing city should be focused OUTSIDE of the area marked for historical preservation. You seem hellbent on arguing that historical areas cannot exist in the same city as skyscrapers. Why not? Sure, there's certain structures in historical areas that can be redeveloped - but why on earth would you tear the whole area down?

I haven't searched too much - but from this thread http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=322056 I found quite a few streetscapes involving Mumbai's colonial architecture (don't ask for older, since Mumbai is a colonial city...)


























Note that none of the pictures posted shows a "historical site" (like VT terminus for example). There are pictures of standalone historical sites in the thread I posted, however.

Some from my photothread on Bombay


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Shanghai is one of the worst planned cities in China.

Let's take a look at other cities in China (all in my province):

Suzhou:

Suzhou is a 2500-year old ancient city which still keep the old city. So skyscrapers can only be allowed to build far away from the old city, but new skyscrapers are erected all around the old city.

Old city skyline, no highrises or even midrises are allowed


















But skyscrapers are all around the old city




































Nanjing:































































































































(xinhuanet forum)


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

Chrissib said:


> What really interests me is, how will chinese cities look like when China is developed? Will the people move out of the highrises to mid- or low-rises or will they stay?
> 
> In the classical developed countries, like NA, Europe or Japan, the majority líves in mid- or lowrises. Is China unique in city-planning?


Hi-rises ≠ low living standard, in fact hi-rises are more expensive than mid-rises in China. Most Chinese live in mid-rises, not hi-rises.

The majority of Chinese farmers live in low-rises, does this make them richer than the urbaners? No.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

Mekky II said:


> Homogeneity of Mumbai :


Mumbai looks way better than western cities.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

No need to be war-flamming.

I guess the Chinese mode wont work for India, and vice versa.


----------



## Marathaman (Jul 24, 2007)

A lot of the new residential blocks all over the country look like this. The inspiration for this kind of design was hiranandani gardens in Powai (Mumbai), and the style seems to have caught on.

These blocks are in Thane, an extension of Mumbai. 


Chrisel said:


> Photo credits: _Vikash, Samba Prasad and Lucas Tuscany_


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

null said:


> Shanghai is one of the worst planned cities in China.
> 
> Let's take a look at other cities in China (all in my province):
> 
> ...


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

tiger said:


> Mumbai looks way better than western cities.


If Shanghaï would have stayed european, it would either looks better that western cities. Now you can only be angry toward japaneses that desintegrated this link.

Little come back in 1936 :

"The city was thus divided between the western half of the city, which was more European, and the eastern, more traditionally Chinese half of the city. New inventions like electricity and trams were quickly introduced, and westerners helped transform Shanghai into a metropolis. British and American businessmen made a great deal of money in trade and finance, and Germany used Shanghai as a base for investing in China. Shanghai accounted for half of the imports and exports of China. The western part of Shanghai was four times larger than the Chinese part in the early 20th century."

:cheers:


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Mahratta said:


> Firstly - Mumbai is a rather "new" city compared to other cities in India. Secondly, most historical development in Mumbai is in the South of the city. The rest can be seen as outside of the historical core.


I hope to see more renovation works there...


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Hyderabad


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

Mekky II said:


> If Shanghaï would have stayed european, it would either looks better that western cities. Now you can only be angry toward japaneses that desintegrated this link.


Sorry, But I think Beijing is the best of the world. Why should Shanghai copy second class cities? Shanghai hands down in terms of modernity when compared with western cities and it also hands down in terms of diversity of historical buildings. Architecturally It IS better than vast majority of western metropolis.


----------



## bobbycuzin (May 30, 2007)

Mahratta said:


> Why wouldn't it be? It's a small image of an HDR image from flickr. That's why the quality isn't optimal.


i think most people would assume it wasn't an actual photograph by looking at it...




Mahratta said:


> First off - you seem to simply pass of photographs that are posted, so there's no real point in posting anything to show you.
> Second - in most aerials, the details on the buildings aren't particularly noticeable. How can you tell an 'old' building from a 'new' one? What constitutes 'old'?
> 
> 
> ...


first, you made the claim that indian cities should revolve around "historical" buildings as opposed to chinese cities. the pictures you've provided are just a few historical districts which are no different than ones you'll find in chinese cities. the reason so many chinese cities look like concrete jungles is because you actually need that many buildings to support a 1 billion+ population. you make it sound like india is in a different situation, which it is not.

you seem hell-bent on making china look like it's destroying its historical structures to make room for new development. just because a building is old, does not make it historically significant, and china is replacing them with newer structures the same way india should be doing with the slums around major cities.

if china was tearing down its history in comparison to india, then how are new world heritage sites being added every year when india only has 1 added in the past 5 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Asia_and_Australasia

give me a break :crazy:


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

bobbycuzin said:


> first, you made the claim that indian cities should revolve around "historical" buildings as opposed to chinese cities.


Right. So you fundamentally misunderstood my argument. What a waste of time.



> you seem hell-bent on making china look like it's destroying its historical structures to make room for new development. just because a building is old, does not make it historically significant, and china is replacing them with newer structures the same way india should be doing with the slums around major cities.


Again - you can't liken old buildings to slums simply because you see no architectural merit in them. The style used in Kashgar was unique in China. If you didn't find it eye-pleasing, that doesn't mean that they should be likened to "slums" and torn down.

Anyway, a comparison between China and India isn't the point of this thread. It was a comparison of the Chinese model of development and the European model of development. Somehow, by misunderstanding most points made, you managed to turn it into a China vs. India thread.



> if china was tearing down its history in comparison to india, then how are new world heritage sites being added every year when india only has 1 added in the past 5 years?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Asia_and_Australasia


Weren't you the one who wanted to distinguish historical areas in a city from historical sites? :lol:
Anyway, World Heritage Sites first need application from the country. It's good that China is finally promoting its heritage structures. India should do the same. The list is not representative at all.



null said:


> No need to be war-flamming.
> 
> I guess the Chinese mode wont work for India, and vice versa.


:applause:


----------

