Welcomingly, since 2006, as a country, we
have paid attention and devised, funded and implemented programmes and projects
for urban development. The label under which this happened may not have been
liked by many, but, that JNNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal
Mission) brought for the first time relatively massive funding for urban
development, mainly urban infrastructure projects such as water supply,
sanitation (sewerage, rainwater drains and garbage management), public
transport, housing for the low-income households and heritage. Cities and
states capable of taking advantage of the national government funds have
benefitted. Well and good.
Suddenly, post May 2014, the new national
government, with a different colour of their flag and policies, inundated us
with new buzz words, one of them is the ‘Smart
Cities’. We knew then that it was Smart to talk and do something about
cities. But, that’s all we knew. Frantic efforts at finding meaning to the
phrase Smart City, imagination to the concept, and framing of aspirations about
the city-images begun to be build. Those who won the race were the IT
Companies, who begun to sell dreams about cities managed through IT-enabled
infrastructure, technology-led city life, seen in the Sci-fi, James Bond and
many other Hollywood films. The whiff of such an automated, high-tech driven
life intoxicated urban-dwellers. Press a button, the garbage is gone, and so
on.
In this imagination, GIFT City (Gujarat
International Finance Tec City), was being developed, much before the Smart
City mission was envisaged by the national government. Original plan only
stated a city that was managed by technology through a Central Command and
Control Centre (C4). The emphasis was on technology and its control over city’s
management through “efficient, safe and smart buildings’. But, the newer
posting on GIFT City’s website says that it will be benchmarked against such
specially developed centres in existing cities such as La Defense in Paris,
Pudong in Shanghai, and so on. The site now states that this project would be
having “high-quality, mixed use district of residential, commercial and open
space facilities that optimize land and real estate values.” In addition, idea
of ‘eco-city’ too has been introduced in the concept of GIFT city, which will
have green buildings.
Another buzz-word in the GIFT City is the
Transit Oriented Development (TOD), that is bringing high density development
on a transit corridor to reduce travel requirements and hence through that
reduce carbon emissions. Never mind if Indian cities have higher density than
suggested for a TOD development in the American context! The GIFT City land
area is about 3.58 sq km, and people can go from one place to another in GIFT
City walking, or cycling. TOD is a concept relevant for large cities, say where
people commute for more than half an hour. Hence the introduction of TOD in
GIFT city is a misconception or use of just another buzz-word. At best, GIFT City
will be a township abutting Gandhinagar, with high-end real estate. This
article is not about the GIFT city and hence we move on.
Smart City: Concept
Smart City as an idea, is one that is data
intensive, networked city, in which, “networked products gather, store and
share user data” for real-time decision-making in managing the networks,
towards “highly-efficient living environments”. The decisions are automated.
The main idea is systems approach to city management for obtaining day-to-day efficiency
in urban living.
To understand in simpler terms; lets take
example of Delhi metro or Mumbai’s suburban train. Smart systems will have real
time data on: (i) where each train is, (ii) number of people in each coach in
the train, (iii) number of people on each platform on the metro/ suburban train
stations, (iv) time taken to embark or disembark from a train and time taken to
clear the platform, (v) time taken for disembarking commuters to leave the
platform after going through the exit gates that are automated through magnetic
cards (we do not have this system in Mumbai), and so on. If there is congestion
on a platform, or a problem in one train, and so on, can be corrected in real
time and the commuters informed.
In other words, Smart Cities concept if
required to be implemented, humongous data would be required. Data collection
on all aspects of city living is not a bad idea. But, currently, data do not
exist. Smart Cities are data-intensive. Data can be used for improving living
conditions and data can also be improved for surveillance! We will have to see
how the data is going to be used.
But, what are the proposals that our cities
have sent under the Smart Cities Mission. The proposals have come in the
context of the guidelines issued by the Ministry. The Smart City features
mentioned in the guidelines are: (i) promoting mixed-land use, (ii) housing for
all, (iii) walkable or cyclable localities, (iv) adequate green cover, (v)
variety of transport options including TOD, (vi) citizen-friendly governance,
(vii) giving a brand identity to a city and (viii) applying smart solutions to
infrastructure services. Nothing problematic about these features and these
then becoming goals! In fact, these are welcomed goals; whether we will be able
to achieve them requires one article for each one of them, and can be written
about subsequently.
Smart City Proposals
Received
The actual proposals from the cities
received by the Ministry of Urban of Urban Development (MoUD) are with regards
to vast array of projects; to name a few types: affordable housing / slum
redevelopment; retrofitting or redeveloping open spaces; retrofitting or
redeveloping lakes or lakefronts, riverfronts, seafronts; retrofitting or
redeveloping business districts and markers; developing heritage areas;
improving flood management; improving street facades; transit infrastructure
development; mega projects such as convention centres, stadiums, museums, etc.;
incubation centres; rental housing; GIS-based property and land management
systems. Are these all technology-intensive; answer is NO. Why are they part of
Smart Cities? Answer is that these projects are required for our cities;
whether implemented under the rubric of urban renewal or smart cities!
These projects were proposed also under the
JNNURM and will be covered under the AMRUT (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and
Urban Transformation) programme, which is yet to take-off. Some exceptions such
as of flood management, city level mega projects, open space redevelopment and
business district development were not covered in JNNURM. JNNURM and AMRUT are
project-based programmes while Smart Cities is area-based, that is multiple
projects converging in one area. AMRUT, which replaces JNNURM is for all cities
whereas Smart Cities programme is for only 100 cities, of which 20 cities have sent
their proposals in the areas mentioned.
In a way, Smart Cities is a new label, same
contents, same implementing agencies the local governments. Same wine, same
bottle new label.
Then why new label? One that in the
partisan Indian politics JN of JNNURM would not have stuck well with the
incumbent dispensation at the national government level. New label gives a new
identity. Anyway, it is Smart to be having the same old wine in the same
bottle. Who cares for the label if the wine is favourable!
No comments:
Post a Comment