A journey towards the centre of the earth

Abstract
With Chennai’s ambitious metro project underway, the authors wish to explore possibilities of building underground to go with the metro rail stations. This paper looks at the advantages/challenges in going underground, the physical aspects of going underground and some case studies of buildings built underground.

Introduction
Urban areas have always been associated with tall buildings and dense neighbourhoods. Few realise the importance of the under bowels of cities which come masqueraded as basements. New York City would not be able to function without its basements, though they are not well designed spaces. When we think of underground the basic thing that comes to our mind is the stereotype of these spaces as being dark and gloomy. Underground as in many cultures is a metaphor for virtual host of negative associations: death, darkness, cold, dampness, and deceit. This preconception has deeply embedded in the psychology of most people. However, going underground has a host of features to offer and this paper will be exploring the advantages and challenges of building underground.
With the advent of Chennai Metro, Chennai goes underground for the first time. This opens up many opportunities for well designed subterranean spaces that are accessible to the metro rail stations. Shopping malls, cultural centres, libraries, art galleries, theatres, offices, etc. are some spaces that could be associated with Chennai Metro as it takes a deep dive into the grounds of the city. Such associations are pretty common in developed countries where trains form a central role in society. Such spaces could help to glamorise the metro and make it hit the ground running, unlike the maligned MRTS project which is yet to take off in terms of usability.

Advantages/Challenges of building underground
Although they can be expensive and difficult to construct, underground facilities offer many important advantages over surface structures. The biggest advantage of going underground is that it enables us to replenish the ground cover, and not spoil the visual impact of the adjacent environment. . Diminishing the surface footprint of a building creates or preserves open space, provides habitat for local animals, enhances the visual environment, and lets rain fall directly on the living earth.
Underground buildings can provide thermal comfort and can reduce our energy cost by 50-80%. The other added advantage of going underground is that it doubles the usage of the land. Their depth can make them resistant to conventional and some nuclear attacks. Surprisingly, experience in Japan and San Francisco has shown that underground buildings are remarkably safe in earthquakes. Additional advantages include lower long-term maintenance costs (because underground structures are not exposed to weather).
Underground placement sometimes offers a practical solution to a vexing problem. For example, elementary schools located under the flight paths for the Los Angeles and Phoenix airports have quiet classrooms because of earth sheltering. Precision instrument factories located inside bedrock can function without traffic-induced vibration or expansion/contraction of materials due to fluctuating temperatures.
But the problem in going underground is that you have to remove the soil layer to create the spaces, which is very expensive and in some cases you have to cut the rocky terrains which is very expensive and laborious, and you to deal with the structure that is going to bear the soil load above, and incorporating the earth quake resistance measures is a costly affair, and other than this you have your air circulation and day lighting criteria which has to be seriously addressed.

Physical factors to consider while building underground

Ventilation and air circulation-
Ventilation and air circulations plays the major role in underground structures, we have to maintain at least two to three air change rate per hour, so that intoxicants like carbon monoxide and other harmful elements are remove and the supply of fresh air is maintained, the air movement should be enough to cause psychological cooling, in underground there should be a separate inlet and outlet structure for the air to come in and go out,
In the most of the existing cases the wind catchers and mechanical systems are used to draw the air in, the air is filtered out and circulated below the window level so that when the air raises up and it cools the surrounding by the process of convection and the heat energy which is dissipated due to the human activities and by the use of machineries is carried along with the rising air and which is vented through solar chimneys, these chimneys works on the principle of stack effect and creates the suction that removes the stale air and helps in air circulation. In some cases the air conditioning units are installed for cooling and maintaining the quality of the air
These chimneys has the glass coverings at the top which heats the air, the hot air raises up there by creating the suction, which helps the stale air to move out.

Day lighting-
Lighting has its own importance in the built environment, in underground spaces the importance of lighting becomes more, as there is a general perception that underground spaces are dark, gloomy, cold and is always associated with death, deceit etc, minimum requirement of light inside a building is 500 lux, proper sunlight is also needed inside a building to ward off any microbial growth which may disintegrate the building so in an underground structure there must be a provision of lighting probably at the top as the other sides remain inside the ground.
For lighting, openings may be left in the roof which may be covered at the top by glass or any other transparent or translucent material which does not restrict the entry of light inside the building, in this case we can go for fully glazed roofing but it is costly and may heat up the building basically in these kind of buildings we go for artificial lighting to light up the space.

Climatology
Chennai has a warm and humid climate. Average temperature ranges from 27-40 deg C. The presence of sea near the city increases the humidity, and therefore going underground will be a challenging task. In underground spaces due to the lack of enough air movement, the air gets stagnant; and due to the sweating and other human activities the humidity level increases which causes discomfort underground. But this has an advantage as well, as we go down to a depth of 3-4m we can achieve a stable temperature which is equal to the average of extreme temperatures. As we go down further the temperature decreases by 1deg Celsius per meter. Therefore this makes the underground spaces cool during the summer and warm during the winters. This in turn reduces the energy consumption of heating or cooling the building.

Geology
The geology and soil properties along with the ground water conditions determine technically speaking the way the subsurface activities can take place. underground structures have to bear the following forces/loads:- lateral forces, due the land movement which is a result of tectonic activities, load on top of the surface.

Case studies
Some buildings by David J. Bennett, FAIA
Bennett designed and oversaw construction of half a dozen subterranean buildings in Minnesota's twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. They ranged from a single-story structure nestling in topsoil to a building burrowed into bedrock 112 feet below the surface. Determined to dispel the stereotype of underground spaces as being dark and gloomy, Bennett devised a variety of innovative techniques for drawing daylight into his buildings.

1. Williamson Hall, University of Minnesota
His first underground creation was Williamson Hall, a University of Minnesota building that houses administrative offices and the campus bookstore. Bennett daylighted its interior in a straightforward manner, using large expanses of windows. Recessing a triangular courtyard in the two-story-deep building provided three walls that could be filled with windows. Angling the windows at 45 degrees from the vertical increased their surface area and, consequently, their ability to transmit sunlight. The strategy was effective in making Williamson Hall the "sunniest building on campus," although its large, sloping windows were vulnerable to heat loss in the winter.

2. Holaday Circuits factory and corporate office building
Bennett again relied on windows to transmit daylight. This time, however, he placed the windows on top of the structure, leaving the entire floor area of the building available for manufacturing and administrative activities. Some of the windows became the south faces of rooftop boxes called daylight monitors. Placing these glass panels vertically maximized their thermal efficiency. One skylight strip atop a building-long corridor employed a different kind of efficiency. During daylight hours, these sloping panels admitted a maximum amount of natural light; at night, light fixtures mounted above them served double duty by illuminating the hallway below while serving as outdoor security lighting.
Bennett used an even more imaginative daylighting scheme for the windows along a shallow, recessed courtyard provided natural light and exterior views to rooms on the first subsurface level of this building. One floor below, office workers could enjoy sunshine and scenery through a simulated window. Long, angled mirrors at the top and bottom of a vertical shaft essentially created a wide periscope. The angles of the mirrors allowed them to function well for workers seated at their desks, but the view was less realistic when viewed from a standing position.

3. Civil and Mineral Engineering Building at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis
Bennett created his most ambitious light management devices for the Civil and Mineral Engineering Building at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. The state legislature decreed that the building should be designed to test and showcase new technologies for underground space utilization in addition to providing instruction, research, and administrative spaces.
Along one side of the building, windows faced a recessed courtyard. Windows in some interior walls let sunlight shine farther into the building. Along the other side of the building, a light monitor on the roof served as an entrance for natural light. A long, south-facing mirror directed sunlight into the north-facing monitor. Carefully placed lenses and reflective surfaces dispersed the light throughout the building's interior.
Yet another light path began in a glass-topped cupola containing a movable mirror that tracked the sun and sent its beams down to the deepest levels of the building, providing a swatch of sunlight 112 feet below the surface.
Bennett also devised a periscope-like system of lenses and mirrors to deliver a remote view of the surface to the lowest floor of the building. The view was good enough to allow building occupants to see what the weather was like outside. However, because the scene was visible from only one spot, the simulated window seemed unnatural. Furthermore, cost-saving modifications to the original design made the equipment difficult to maintain.

Friedrichstrasse, Berlin
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the municipality of Berlin decided to revitalize Friedrichstrasse, formerly a fashionable shopping area. With three different designers involved and their own interpretation of the brief, the result was a series of independent mega structures lining Friedrichstrasse. In addition to seven stories above ground, each unit contains four sublevels. All the units are connected underground by spacious shopping streets.
In an attempt to reintroduce the typical Berlin building style, many of the units along Friedrichstrasse and in the surrounding area have courtyards. In one of the units, the Galeries Lafayette, designed by French architect Jean Nouvel, stands a remarkable structure. The four sides of the building are of glass and round at one corner. The innumerable reflections this creates provide a spectacular image. The transparency of the building is enhanced by reflections of artificial light. The masterstroke of the unit is the way the building has been cored. Two cones of glass, placed one on top of the other, bore like a whirlwind through the unit from top to bottom. The first cone reaches its largest diameter at the level of the ground floor and the second tapers downward from that point. The logical result is that natural light penetration is optimized and transported deep down into the building. At ground level, the cone is open, offering a view of all eleven storeys.

Conclusion
Though there are physical challenges and human prejudices to overcome, building underground can offer many advantages, and can be a visually stimulating experience. If taken up seriously, this opportunity can be a shot in the arm for Chennai’s metro rail project, and could help arrest the glamour of urban sprawl and fast cars.

References
1.Meijenfeldt, Enrst von; Below Ground Level – Creating New Spaces for Contemporary Architecture; Birkhauser, 2003
2.Hall, Loretta; Underground buildings – Architecture and Environment; subsurfacebuilding.com, 2002

The underutilized mass transit resources and underachieving real estate market in Chennai forcing unhealthy sprawl

Abstract
What can the developing world do to address climate change? Can there be a solution that not only addresses climate change, but also addresses the economic agenda? In short, can there be a sustainable solution? The good news is that the answer is ‘Yes’ to all of the above, and the answer lies in transit oriented development. The question that then comes up is, are we ready for transit oriented development? This paper takes a look at Chennai, one of the four metropolitan cities of India and one of the few cities that has a metro rail network to assess the readiness for transit oriented development and analyses the issues caused by the current land-use patterns.

Introduction
‘Climate change is happening faster than we believed only two years ago. Continuing with business as usual almost certainly means dangerous, perhaps catastrophic, climate change during the course of this century. This is the most important challenge for this generation.’ [Jose Manuel Barroso]
Carbon dioxide emissions caused by burning of fuel in various applications is the chief culprit that has led to the current issue with climate change. Of the three main sources of carbon emission due to human intervention - transportation, industry and buildings, transportation and buildings constitute the built environment and their consumption pattern is a direct result of the decisions and development patterns of the architecture and planning professions.
Increasing development footprint and the resultant deforestation is the second culprit in this game of climate change. This has everything to do with planning of the built environment and its forced usage of the automobile. With the end of fossil fuels and no visible substitute in sight, it is a good time to take stock of the need for individual transport modules, especially in crowded cities like those of the developing world. It is a good time to take stock of the development patterns and address the planning issues that could lead to a sustainable solution.
Lack of proper infrastructure is another cause for environmental degradation in developing countries. Segregation of society based on economic classes has led to disparity in infrastructure and the proliferation of slums, squatter settlements and under privileged communities, which are as big a threat to global warming as any of the planned sprawl developments.
Sustainable development and the need for ‘Transit Oriented Development’
Sustainable development means ‘Simultaneous and continuous economic, environmental and cultural development over generations.’ As can be seen from all of the above explained causes for climate change, the built environment is the key ingredient to provide for sustainable development. Planning the built environment to minimise transportation of men and materials, designing buildings to reduce energy consumption in not only their operation but in their construction and choice of materials as well and providing a mixed-use mixed occupancy community that leaves no pocket of developed land under privileged would then be the goals of planners and architects to provide for sustainable development.
To achieve the goal of ‘Planning the built environment to minimise transportation of men and materials,’ the first thought that comes to mind is to create self-contained communities that are self-sufficient and hence reduce the need for transportation. Is it practically possible to achieve such communities? Aren’t the suburban proliferations of America an affirmative answer to this? Moreover, local geographical conditions go a long way in deciding the economic prospects of an area, and self-sufficient communities would not be sustainable in areas that have poor geographical conditions. Can development be ignored in such areas forcing people to move to more prosperous locations? No. Isn’t that the basis of our current issues in the developing world? Can people move to the community where they find employment? No, it is not so easy in a society of increasingly dual income nuclear families and equal educational qualifications of husband and wife to find suitable employment in the same community for both of them.
As can be seen from the above argument, transportation of men and materials is inevitable. What is then wrong with the current system of transportation that it needs to be revisited? And, how can the need for transportation be minimised? The answer to this conundrum lies in the fact that the current transportation patterns are chaotic and resemble a lack of planning. The dominance of individual travel modules is the chief ingredient of this chaos. This is chaos not only in terms of transportation planning but also in terms of land use development. Freed from the clutches of organized transportation networks, the development bandwagon behaves like a nomadic traveller moving from place to place in search of quick economic returns. The lack of cohesion between transportation and land use planning can only make policy decisions go haywire.
In India’s case, to quote the then honourable minister for Urban Development Mr. Jaipal Reddy, ‘India is one of the emerging urban economies in the world with a specific shift in terms of contribution to GDP from agriculture to tertiary and manufacturing sectors, thus bringing urban areas to the centre stage of the development process. For urban areas to be able to support the required level of economic activity, they must provide for easy, sustainable flow of goods and people. However, such flow of goods and people has been facing several problems of congestion, pollution and accidents coupled with lack of coordination amongst various agencies. Unless these problems are remedied, poor mobility can become a major hurdle to economic growth and cause deterioration in the quality of life. Government of India has, therefore, approved a comprehensive National Urban Transport Policy which focuses on returning the roads to the people which have been colonized by the vehicles. The thrust of the policy is ‘to move people’ and not the vehicles. The overall objective of the policy is to ensure safe, affordable, quick, comfortable, reliable and sustainable access for the people to jobs, education, recreation and such other needs in our cities. The policy focuses on integration of land use and transport planning. Unless planning of land use and transport is organically interlinked, whatever transportation measures we take later at best can only be a partial remedy.’ [Jaipal Reddy]
Transit oriented development then holds the key to providing for sustainable development. Transit oriented development means urban development along organized transport corridors, with concentrated high-density development at the nodes. Forms of organized transport corridors include metro rail systems, light rail systems and bus rapid transit systems.
The case of Chennai
Chennai has an extensive metro rail network. The Tambaram-Beach line has been operational since 1931 and was the first meter gauge EMU service in the country. In 1995, the MRTS system was flagged off and now a new metro system is under construction. However, for all its history and glory, only 3% of annual trips in the city use trains, compared to around 40% by bus [CMDA second master plan]. This number clearly proves that Chennai is not making full use of its rail corridor, and is therefore not an example of transit oriented development. What could be the reason for this, and what can be done to address this? Is Chennai ready for a change towards transit oriented development?
A closer look at the land-use pattern around the nodes along the rail corridor provides a clue to why the train system is so underutilized. The key to understanding the pattern lies in the first master plan for Chennai done in 1976. The main goals of the first master plan were to restrict density and population growth in the city, restrict industrial and commercial developments within the metropolitan area, encouragement of growth along the metro rail transportation corridors and creation of urban nodes at the termini, dispersal of certain activities from the CBD and development of the satellite towns of MM Nagar, Gummidipoondi and Thiruvallur. The CMDA also brought in land-use based Development Regulation System to regulate development in the metropolitan area.
As a result of the thrust provided by the first master plan, existing communities along the metro rail network started gaining prominence as residential settlements. A market street that connected the community to the railway station started to become an active centre for evening shopping, especially for fruits, vegetables and flowers. The places of employment apart from the CBD were situated away from the metro rail corridor, which were connected by the bus network. People who lived in communities near railway stations would either walk to the station or cycle down to a cycle stand near the station, take the train down to a convenient location, walk out through the market street to the bus stand to get to the bus that would take them to their work place, and vice versa. This provided a critical mass of pedestrian traffic along the market streets which tipped the development patterns on these streets towards commercial zones.
The Market Streets
‘Kada veedi’ or ‘Market Street’ is the traditional Tamil market place. Dating back to its emergence, these markets have essentially been pedestrian oriented. The temples were the focal point of the community, and these markets emerged in close proximity to the temples. Evidence of this can be found at most historic temples of Tamil Nadu. The function of these markets was to provide an outlet for anyone who had something to sell. The entire community descended on these markets, and provided an inclusive opportunity for economic sustenance.
In an anecdotal sense, the market street was the focal point of the village or neighbourhood. The emphasis of this space was on informal community exchanges. Frequently, these markets also included community spaces like the village panchayats. While the temple was a formal area, these markets were buoyant with life, colour and proved to be the locus centrum of joy for the seller and the buyer. In short, this is where the community met and social life thrived.
In more recent times in the newer communities, the shops have tended to line up on the main roads of the community which in many cases are the roads leading to the railway station. The pedestrian critical mass provided by two important dynamics – the connection between the bus and the train network and the connection between the cycle stand and the railway station have been the main drivers in the development of these market streets.
With the allowance for mixing residential and retail spaces, these spaces have tended to have a laissez faire attitude, and have depended on an individual owner’s requirements for its form, shape and existence. Add to these complex policies like the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the consequent fragmentation of property ownership, the variables and individual factors contributing to the development pattern tend to take exponential proportions.
While it is not a bad idea to allow market forces to decide land-use pattern, it induces a lot of inertia into the system. The basic mismatch comes from the fact that growth patterns of the urban fabric are driven by macro-economic policies and extraneous pressure while these markets and their land-use within a community are driven by the individual owner’s micro-economic factors and the neighbourhood’s intrinsic market scenario. In a rapidly growing country like India, this mismatch and the resultant inertia cause more macro-economic pressure and in turn result in the ubiquitous obsolescence of these market places, while at the same time forcing unhealthy sprawl.
This organic mode of development has caused, apart from the inertia to change, an illusion of saturation especially along the market street. The density of the built form is high, which in turn causes a high density of pedestrian traffic, thereby creating the illusion of saturated development. However, the actual built area and floor space available is very low and does not utilize the full potential of the location. This illusion of saturation and the resultant premium price tag has caused new development to move outside the city.
Social segregation
The settlement pattern along the metro rail corridor encourages pedestrian traffic true to the character of the market street. But with economic liberalisation, increased overcrowding and increasing affluence of Indians, more and more of the middle class and upper middle class people drive cars and seldom walk or take the trains in order to avoid the crowd. The increasing development of commercial corridors that are reachable by cars and cars only is testimony to the segregation of society along economic class lines.
This has resulted in a lower middle class brand image for the trains and the markets and communities adjoining the rail network. While the introduction of air conditioned Volvo buses at a premium price tag for the customers has improved the penetration of buses to different classes of the society, the trains have lagged behind in such a motive. The introduction of the metro is a step in that direction, but its effectiveness is questionable when put in context with the current development trends.
Current development trends have tended to focus on three main areas – Old Mahabalipuram Road, M M Nagar and Sriperumbudur. Apart from M M Nagar, the other two areas are situated away from the metro rail network, and as such do not help in overcoming the underutilization of the train resources. Development of residential areas in close proximity to these new technology parks is currently in full swing, which, when populated will create satellite towns around Chennai. [CMDA] Though this is a development which aims to alleviate the traffic issues of people living in the city and working in the suburbs, it shows an eerie similarity to the development of single-use American suburbs in the latter half of the last century. This is urban sprawl at its worst, and as Albert Einstein put it so aptly, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity."
Conclusion
Chennai’s extensive rail corridor needs a boost in terms of the quality of the trains being operated and the frequency of the service provided, which then depends on the attractiveness of the areas accessible by the rail corridors that need to be of mixed-use mixed-occupancy types to attract a broader cross-section of people. Earmarking one square kilo meter around key railway stations as designated business districts and revamping their built-environment based on a form-based code can be the genesis for true transit-oriented development in the city. With a less than ideal built-environment that currently exists as can be seen from some of the pictures below, there is a real and urgent need to revamp the built-environment to avoid potential disasters. With its extensive rail corridor, Chennai is well equipped to stride into the future if and only if some of the current social and development problems are resolved favourably.

References
1.Jose Manuel Barroso, Time to deliver on climate change, The Hindu Sep 2009
2.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), 2005, Draft copy of The Second Master Plan for Chennai, CMDA
3.Jaipal Reddy, Asia on the move: Energy efficient and Inclusive Transport, ADB Transport Forum – Keynote address on Indian Urban Transport Policy

Urban Environment and the Indian city

The numbers are mind boggling. Every day 300 families migrate to Mumbai, by 2050 50% of the Indian population will be urban – which means about 60 – 65 million which represents a 100% growth from the already overcrowded cities in its current state, Delhi ships water from Ganga despite Yamuna’s presence, Chennai’s population density is 24,700 people per sq km. Are these cities ready to double their size in the next few decades, and how? Should they double their size, or their carrying capacity? What can be done?
On the global front, apart from the worldwide recession, cities are back at the forefront of mainstream economics. Over the last half of the previous century, suburbanization combined with rapid disinvestment and degeneration of urban neighborhoods was rampant along with the automobile boom in leading the economic bandwagon. With globalization, however, the increased need for collaboration and human interaction in leading business decisions and the lifestyle of the modern ‘knowledge worker’ has brought urban areas that have an attractive atmosphere for such interactions and lifestyles into the limelight.
Where does this leave Indian cities? Apart from the historical fabric and cheap technical labor, they hold little attraction at a global level. The infrastructure for a friendly urban atmosphere and pedestrian oriented neighborhoods which is the main draw of the ‘global cities’ is virtually non-existent. Survival instincts take over and the entire urban experience provides scenes of various survival mechanisms – some legal, some illegal, some approved, some not, some sustainable and sane while others are obscene and ludicrous in terms of a social and cultural fabric.
The best illustration that brings out this experience is that of Pondy Bazaar in Chennai. Comparing this urban district to another similar district in Washington DC – Georgetown, the biggest difference is in the pace of life on these streets. While the laidback atmosphere in Georgetown allows you to have a wholesome experience of the urban fabric, life in Pondy Bazaar is frenetic and the survival instinct is rampant in full splendor. There are no street side restaurants and street bands and cafes that let you relax and spend a balmy summer evening. No, not in Pondy Bazaar. It is all about fighting traffic to find a parking spot, shop and get out as fast as you can for there is nothing to let you enjoy the setting.
Where does this survival instinct come from? What is the main driver behind such frenetic and feverish urban activity? Why is there a lack of quality in our urban experience? Partially, the answer lies in the large migratory population that throng our cities in search of a livelihood and a better life for their future generations, it lies in the failure of our agricultural system that leads thousands of farmers to suicide, it lies in the lack of investment outside of ‘Economic Zones’ and ‘export oriented policies’ that came with our economic liberty.
As a result, we are ‘Caught in the Middle’ to use the term framed by Richard C. Longworth in his book ‘Caught in the Middle’, where he describes how the American Mid-West once the cradle of the US economy is now a derelict and abandoned region better known as the ‘Rust Belt’, is caught in the middle between the old economic setup where they were productive and the new economic policies of globalization where they are marginalized. Their skills and training do not render them useful to the new economy and the old industries where these communities were successful have also taken the Silk Route. The blue collared workers find themselves out of favor due to lack of training in the ‘new’ industry and their acquired skill is of no use anymore. And he is talking of America, where access to education is not an issue.
In the Indian context, given the size of our population and the access to basic facilities outside the preferred urban/economic zones, we face a larger conundrum. Decentralized economic opportunity and a widespread investment and development portfolio is the call of the hour to provide for inclusive growth – the latest political mantra in India. Whatever the merits and demerits of the Nehru era, the investment in education and science however farfetched it seemed at the time has been our savior in the last two decades. Similar vision and commitment is called for from a policy stand point. The aim should be to stop migration to cities and provide opportunities for a better life wherever there is an existing human settlement.
The means of achieving this goal is not farfetched or utopian. We have had successful examples like Amul that have created a business model to emulate. With a cooperative base and a capitalistic outreach, Amul has been able to channelize economic opportunity to the grass roots shown by the development of Anand in Gujrat. Similar setups with an organized retail sector at the helm can help bring prosperity to the grass roots of our country. With this kind of a setup, redistribution of wealth acquired is also channelized and realizable, and does not remain a pipe dream.
At the moment, we are pinging our hopes on ‘trickle-down Reaganomics’ it seems, with no mechanism other than a Robin Hood story in place to redistribute wealth to foster ‘inclusive growth’. Our built environment also reflects this thought process at the policy level as can be clearly seen on ‘IT Highway’ in Chennai. Not so long ago, this was a road flanked by farm lands, marshes and backwaters, with buildings flung far and few in between, interspersed by villages. Today, it looks like a mixture of confused glass containers waiting to be shipped out of an otherwise derelict village. Clearly, the conundrum is because the community is not being developed in an inclusive manner. The inhabitants of the glass containers are shipped in and shipped out on a daily basis and their money is also spent elsewhere. This is exclusionary development and not inclusive growth.
Urbanization of the human population may be an irreversible phenomenon. However, it does not mean that existing cities have to bear the brunt of this phenomenon. Through decentralized development, newer urban regions can be created which will enable a better quality of life in every environment and render the possibility of an access to livelihood in one’s preferred environment. It does not mean a return to Ebenezer Howard and his Garden Cities, but networked transit-oriented development with high density urban centers at transit hubs and a hierarchy of high-speed long distance rail, short-distance rail and surface trams that enables development footprint to be low and allows men and materials to be transported in an efficient manner. It means a revamp of the existing urban fabric in the current cities to enable transit-oriented development and efficient resource utilization. It means that current cities should not be disinvested; rather require more attention and investment to alter the cancerous urban fabric of today to make them truly ‘Global cities’ in the shadow of which the smaller centers can then prosper.

Better Transportation Needs Better Cities

Author: Nate Berg

A new design competition is seeking solutions to L.A.'s transportation problems. But the real solution may not have anything to do with transportation at all.
Sometimes it's good to be a city. If there's a problem, and that problem is really bad, and it won't go away, somebody at some point will buckle and go beyond the traditional procedure to try to do something about it -- or at least get somebody else to do it. This is the amazing model of the design competition. People pay to enter, other people pay to award the winner, and the city pays little or nothing. It just sits on the receiving end of an intelligent and detailed solution to its problem.
It's a good thing this model exists, because there is a city with one major problem and very little cash available for solving it. Right on time is "A New Infrastructure: Innovative Transit Solutions for Los Angeles", an open ideas competition sponsored by the Southern California Institute for Future Initiatives (SCIFI) at the Southern California Institute of Architecture and The Architect's Newspaper. The competition calls for new ideas to make L.A. County's transportation infrastructure better. It's a great premise for a competition because getting around L.A. is horrible. And there is no shortage of ideas on what to do about it.
Transportation is a subject that comes up a lot around here, especially in formal discussions about the city. I've been to a lot of talks and lectures focused on cities or L.A. over the last few months, and invariably the topic of mobility comes up -- whether it's on the agenda or not.
There's always that point at the end of these types of discussions, especially in L.A., when the audience's questions drift towards how planners or architects or designers or politicians can make it easier to get around. I guess this makes sense: transportation issues are what people typically experience most often in this city, making it probably the most approachable planning topic for non-planner types. And the conversation is almost always the same. They all want to know how to get from point A to point B faster, more efficiently, and with less traffic. The likely solution, it seems, is to reduce congestion and increase transit; achieving these two fronts will make the city better. Or at least that's the assumption.
But really, it's the other way around: make the city better, and as a result transit use will increase and congestion won't even be a problem. Not that congestion won't be there, as it certainly will, but it will be less of an issue because people will experience it less. Essentially, L.A.'s traffic problems (and those of any other city) are experiential – traffic is only a problem when you're stuck in it. This might seem selfish, but traffic is, at its core, a selfish issue. People don't complain about traffic because everyone is stuck in traffic. They complain because they are stuck, and it's making them late or making their ride much longer than their patience.
Improving transportation in L.A. is really a matter of reducing the need to be in a car. Or even a bus, for that matter. If it were easier to do all the things people need to do within a closer proximity, people wouldn't have to go across town and back over and over again.
But let's be clear: L.A. will always be a driving city.
It's unfortunate, but it's true. There's always going to be millions of people driving in, around and through L.A. As a vibrant city in a geographically dispersed metropolis, L.A. will consistently draw people -- for jobs, tourism and lifestyle reasons, but due to its polycentric destination-based layout, the car will remain the most reliable way to travel long distances between many places. And it's likely to be the dominant transportation mode for the city as a whole for a long time. But for individuals, it doesn't have to be. L.A. is (despite common perception) a very dense city. But it's a density that's incredibly compartmentalized. Each land use has its place, and the places where these uses mix effectively are far too few. What the city needs is a better mix that's better distributed.
If it were possible in every neighborhood in the city to walk 20 minutes and pass a grocery store, a child care facility, a restaurant, a park, a bar, and a transit hub, the whole city would be walking -- or at least not driving as much. A 1996 report on National Personal Transportation Survey data found that doubling density brought down VMT by 38%. I know driving is deeply ingrained in the American identity, but as costs rise, parking gets worse and congestion sees only slight reductions, walking will start to seem like the smart thing to do. But to get people walking, neighborhoods need places people can walk to: goods, services, and amenities.
I'll be curious to see what types of proposals are submitted for the L.A. transportation infrastructure design competition. I'll be even more curious to see which proposal is chosen to solve the problem when the winner is announced on March 21. No doubt there will be some incredibly interesting transit systems and corridors proposed. But as competition entrants, planners and the public in general try to develop ideas about how to make better transportation infrastructure, we really should be thinking more about how to make the city a better place to hold it.
Nate Berg is assistant editor of Planetizen.