HOT TOPICS
SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES
Race Course - argument for tall building and density
Written By silkboard - 5 August, 2009
Bangalore governance Planning sustainability urban development Analysis Race Course environment FSI
I have been looking for some data points to support what very few have said about the Race Course debate. The argument goes like this - a tall building is a better option than doing a green open park. IDS said this, and some opposed, without real data points or arguments for backing. To me, arguments like "lets go green", lets create "carbon sink" etc are rhetorical unless you fit them into some overall long term plan for the city.
In today's business standard, Sanjeev Sanyal argues that our new cities need to be dense and walkable. Data point given is a comparison of two similar cities - Atlanta and Barcelona. Take these
- Similar population and profile, but Atlanta's per capita ecological footprint is 4 times that of Barcelona.
- Atlanta has Metro network of 74 km, Barcelona 99.
- But, longest possible distance within Atlanta is 137km, Barcelona 37.
- So, only 4% of Atlanta's population lives within walking distance of a Metro station, compared to 60% for Barcelona
Now put a few things that Bangalore is planning in perspective. These have been opposed by the extreme greens
- Increase FAR in areas sorrounding the upcoming Metro rail network
- Major tall building at Majestic
- Major tall building at race course
Most greens in our city are tempted to oppose anything that increases density. But it is worthwhile to think in wider perspective of City Planning - dense cities encourage walking, living close to work, and most important promote commercially sustainable public transport systems.
A so called carbon sink in the middle of CBD is very likely to do these two things
- Create a few gated communities and Business Parks 25 km from CBD
- And then, pressure to create an elevated expressway from new communities and Tech Parks to the CBD
For all you know, some of these new communities and Business Parks in the suburbs would come up on lake lands :), but leave that much imagination aside for now.
I am not sure if our City Planners are thinking the same way Sanjeev Sanyal is (in today's business standard), but if you pause and think about it, the tall buildings at Majestic and Race Course is the way to go - these are better steps towards sustainability.
So if you buy this way of thinking, pitch in and lend support to the tall building (high FAR in CBD) proposals that get lost in the noise made by the greens.
cheers,
SB aka Pranav
COMMENTS
Rithesh - 5 August, 2009 - 04:18
But the greens including me are opposed to any structure coming up on the race course land. Depending on the connectivity and the parking facilities of the locality the FAR should be increase - places like MG road which will be connected by the Metro or regions close to the TTMs or regions along the current and the new ring road. Atleast in the short term - increased FAR can offset the increased demand for real estate in the CBD.
The idea of higher FAR should be to protect the small pockets of forests within and around CBD and not to build newer taller buildings in these pockets.
Most building in CBD - around MG road and surrounding regions are pretty old - higher FAR will encourage land owners to rebuild many of the existing structures to add more work space.
s_yajaman - 5 August, 2009 - 04:50
SB,
I always thought IDS said no trees on the roads and more urban forest.
A tall building better than open green space or urban forest. Then tall building should be better than Ulsoor Lake as well. Why do we need urban forests or lakes?
Let's go green is rhetorical - let's build a tall building on the Race Course is equally rhetorical unless it fits in some long term plan. This one seems to be based on the CM's whims and fancies.
Not many of us support an urban sprawl the way it has happened in the US - that causes more damage to the environment than tall buildings. But a tall building should also come out of a need and not because there happens to be vacant land.
I am looking for data on green cover across major cities of the world. Singapore has left space for plenty of urban forests. The green cover there is 46%. They have a well developed CBD in the form of Raffles Place. New York has Central Park. London has Hyde Park.
Green does not mean anti-development. Similarly brown/grey/glass does not mean development.
Srivathsa
s_yajaman - 5 August, 2009 - 06:16
I am still recovering from the shock that I got reading your post :) So some more questions.
Dense cities promote walking. Correct. (This assumes that walking infrastructure will also be created). Please tell me how this tall building will promote walking and not driving.
Dense cities promote living closer to work. By building this tall building, are we also magically shifting ITPL and E-City closer to peoples homes? Please enlighten us.
Dense cities promote public transport. Correct. And how will this tall building in the RC do this?
Let us assume this tall building adds a million square feet of space. That will provide working space for 10000-20000 people. How will this help?
There are some fairly obvious contradictions between the two outcomes you forecast when there are green spaces in the CBD.
You might finally want to relook at your whole post which seems to have been written in an uncharacteristically hurried manner :)
Srivathsa
idontspam - 5 August, 2009 - 07:01
First, I would prefer the whole race course to be an urban forest and the density be increased in the vicinity of where metro stations are available. Namely MG road area. This has to be done in a planned manner by identifying zons assigning FARs and revising them appropriately etc. NY style.
Second, I would rather not have govt get into construction business, not just that they dont do a good job aesthetically and in quality but also because tax money is not to be used for commercial buildings. On the other hand if these were going to be govt offices that is a different story. Only govt needs to build it and that too hopefully they will use some imagination and make it a green building and aesthetically pleaseing and give it to a known construction company, not PWD. The fact that it will be tall and iconic for Bangalore is a side effect IMO.
Third, A combination of the above 2. Out of 60 odd acres if 70-80% created an urban forest and the rest used for a tall govt building it will serve 2 purposes. To keep all govt departments in a single location. Since major portion of govt employees are loyal and confirmed users of public transport, it will help mive people more efficiently using shuttles and knowing the proximity to the other govt buildings in that area a ped cum PT shuttle infrastructure can be built. Try circular trams in that area for example. It will also serve as a much needed parking space for the area (see DULT parking report).
I dont understand what EC and Whitefield have to do with this govt building?
Naveen - 5 August, 2009 - 05:13
Berlin's Tiergarten is perhaps the best green space I have ever seen - beats central park or hyde park anyday !
PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES
Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!