When the design of New Delhi was drawn up, it was based on the concept of a ‘Garden City’, an idea much in vogue in early 20th-century Europe. Sir Edwin Landseer Lutyens, the chief architect of the new capital, had envisaged it with wide, tree line avenues, water bodies, and stately bungalows set in verdant plots. As Delhi kept growing over the years, this area came to be known as the ‘Lutyens Bungalow Zone’.
With a set of stringent guidelines, it is difficult to even carry out slight modifications to buildings coming under the LBZ, which after 2003 included many areas that were not even part of Lutyens’ Delhi. The guidelines are now set to get relaxed after the Ministry of Urban Development asked the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) to review the norms.
The report submitted by the latter, now in the public domain for consultation, recommends not only the exclusion of areas such as Golf Links, Sunder Nagar and Bengali Market from the LBZ, but also the redevelopment of buildings within the LBZ, allowing those more height, floor area ratio, and ground coverage.
The proposed norms on the redevelopment of this heritage zone, however, has sparked a debate in the Capital with urban planners, designers, architects, and conservationists being divided over the issue of allowing more height and space to structures falling under the LBZ. The moot question that is being asked is what constitutes ‘heritage’?
“We have a concept of heritage and it would be a great anomaly if you rubbished it,” said A.G.K. Menon, conservationist and convener of Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage’s (INTACH) Delhi Chapter. “We are not against development. You have the entire city for development; why is there such anxiety to redevelop such a small area that is declared heritage and admired world over?” he said.
DUAC chairman P.S.N. Rao, however, is of the view that bungalows, vacant plots, and barracks in the area, which are in a dilapidated state, can’t be called heritage. While Mr. Rao told The Hindu that many stakeholders, including INTACH, were consulted before the recommendations were drawn up, Mr. Menon said that he has been misrepresented and misquoted in the report. “We didn’t even get the minutes of the meetings till after the recommendations were sent,” he claimed. INTACH is preparing a report opposing the DUAC recommendations.
“Delhi is already burgeoning and the LBZ is the only salvation place. Redevelopment of the area would mean more people and cars, and added pressure on infrastructure, which is another aspect that has to be looked into apart from its heritage value,” said Priyaleen Singh, HoD, Department of Architectural Conservation, School of Planning and Architecture.
There are views that in a city bursting at the seams, there is no logic in ‘artificially’ maintaining such low density. The number of people living in the LBZ per acre is 15, while the figure exceeds 1,500 in many areas of Delhi. B.K. Chugh, former Director General of the Central Public Works Department, for instance, believes it is a ‘waste of space’.
There are also views that redevelopment of the LBZ cannot be kept in abeyance but has to be dealt with carefully keeping its heritage value in mind.
“At the core of the LBZ, there are many ‘loose’ areas, including triangular blocks, barracks, and quarters where proper utilisation of land and densification is possible. However, redevelopment concerns the character of the city and we need to protect the character of the arterial roads, including details such as gates of the bungalows, numbering,” said K.T. Ravindran, former chairman, DUAC.
“The current proposal does not address all these concerns and we have to keep in mind that we will never be able recreate such a place again,” Mr. Ravindran said.
