In the steel flyover issue, we are seeing a clash of two competing visions about the future of a city like Bengaluru.
We are faced with the relentless growth of population, be it people or private vehicles that puts enormous pressure on our environment, resources and rising expectations of citizens of the government of the day to meet their demands 24 X 7.
In this context, one vision is that the only way out is to build more infrastructure (unfortunately a lot of it mindlessly) whatever be its cost. If the route is unsustainable environmentally, it's a necessary price we have to pay for growth and development. Anyone who mocks at this vision is branded anti-development and while it is easy to be armchair critics, the government has to finally bite the bullet and take decisions, however unpopular.
An alternative vision is that while growth and development are necessary, can we address it by being more sensitive to nature, scarce resources and core citizen views on what makes a city liveable. In this vision, citizens expect that they will have roadsides to walk safely, a mix of sustainable commute alternatives be it public transport, private vehicles, cycling and most importantly walking, enabling road infrastructure, clean available water, pollution, garbage-free surroundings, open public spaces for friends and family to congregate, nurturing nature, places for art and culture, healthy living and more. In essence, growth and development with a heart and inclusive thinking.
This vision is mocked at as being too utopian, idealistic and its proponents positioned as unrealistic environmentalists, tree-huggers, impediments to development and what have you.
I subscribe to the alternative vision. The steel flyover is a case in point where the two competing visions are firmly locked in contest. The government (current and earlier ones) believes that their solution to the visible, growing problems is infallible and the proposed steel flyover with the proposed alignment is the only way to forge ahead into the new world. The protesting citizen groups disagree with their 'no steel flyover' demand bringing the clash of visions to a head.
In my view, the government's (current and past) solution to a traffic problem in this case is on a very weak wicket. This solution promotes private vehicles over public transport and that surely cannot be the government's intent.
It is pedestrian-unfriendly and will be a visual eyesore at the heart of the city. What has been foisted on citizens is a poorly conceived engineering project sold as a solution to traffic congestion. The meeting point at Hebbal flyover near Baptist hospital will be a veritable cross-traffic mess and the city centre will be a backed-up, gridlocked one with ugly structures all over the place, notwithstanding government responses.
There is a callous attitude about shrinking public spaces and cutting 812 trees in the city centre. Our trees define who we are. Bengaluru was a garden city because it had the green cover and open spaces that an earlier generation generously bequeathed us. Now we are brazen about doing away with our legacy and leaving the next generation with a concrete-cum-steel jungle connected with elevated structures.
Enlightened global cities are moving towards more open green spaces and walking paths. We seem to be headed the other way to doomsday. In a symbolic sense, if we persist with this flyover project in its current form, it will be the death of Bengaluru as we know it. And we will only have ourselves to blame. One hopes wise counsel prevails and the government rethinks the project.
We are faced with the relentless growth of population, be it people or private vehicles that puts enormous pressure on our environment, resources and rising expectations of citizens of the government of the day to meet their demands 24 X 7.
In this context, one vision is that the only way out is to build more infrastructure (unfortunately a lot of it mindlessly) whatever be its cost. If the route is unsustainable environmentally, it's a necessary price we have to pay for growth and development. Anyone who mocks at this vision is branded anti-development and while it is easy to be armchair critics, the government has to finally bite the bullet and take decisions, however unpopular.
An alternative vision is that while growth and development are necessary, can we address it by being more sensitive to nature, scarce resources and core citizen views on what makes a city liveable. In this vision, citizens expect that they will have roadsides to walk safely, a mix of sustainable commute alternatives be it public transport, private vehicles, cycling and most importantly walking, enabling road infrastructure, clean available water, pollution, garbage-free surroundings, open public spaces for friends and family to congregate, nurturing nature, places for art and culture, healthy living and more. In essence, growth and development with a heart and inclusive thinking.
This vision is mocked at as being too utopian, idealistic and its proponents positioned as unrealistic environmentalists, tree-huggers, impediments to development and what have you.
I subscribe to the alternative vision. The steel flyover is a case in point where the two competing visions are firmly locked in contest. The government (current and earlier ones) believes that their solution to the visible, growing problems is infallible and the proposed steel flyover with the proposed alignment is the only way to forge ahead into the new world. The protesting citizen groups disagree with their 'no steel flyover' demand bringing the clash of visions to a head.
In my view, the government's (current and past) solution to a traffic problem in this case is on a very weak wicket. This solution promotes private vehicles over public transport and that surely cannot be the government's intent.
It is pedestrian-unfriendly and will be a visual eyesore at the heart of the city. What has been foisted on citizens is a poorly conceived engineering project sold as a solution to traffic congestion. The meeting point at Hebbal flyover near Baptist hospital will be a veritable cross-traffic mess and the city centre will be a backed-up, gridlocked one with ugly structures all over the place, notwithstanding government responses.
There is a callous attitude about shrinking public spaces and cutting 812 trees in the city centre. Our trees define who we are. Bengaluru was a garden city because it had the green cover and open spaces that an earlier generation generously bequeathed us. Now we are brazen about doing away with our legacy and leaving the next generation with a concrete-cum-steel jungle connected with elevated structures.
Enlightened global cities are moving towards more open green spaces and walking paths. We seem to be headed the other way to doomsday. In a symbolic sense, if we persist with this flyover project in its current form, it will be the death of Bengaluru as we know it. And we will only have ourselves to blame. One hopes wise counsel prevails and the government rethinks the project.
In the steel flyover issue, we are seeing a clash of two competing visions about the future of a city like Bengaluru.
We are faced with the relentless growth of population, be it people or private vehicles that puts enormous pressure on our environment, resources and rising expectations of citizens of the government of the day to meet their demands 24 X 7.
In this context, one vision is that the only way out is to build more infrastructure (unfortunately a lot of it mindlessly) whatever be its cost. If the route is unsustainable environmentally, it’s a necessary price we have to pay for growth and development. Anyone who mocks at this vision is branded anti-development and while it is easy to be armchair critics, the government has to finally bite the bullet and take decisions, however unpopular.
An alternative vision is that while growth and development are necessary, can we address it by being more sensitive to nature, scarce resources and core citizen views on what makes a city liveable. In this vision, citizens expect that they will have roadsides to walk safely, a mix of sustainable commute alternatives be it public transport, private vehicles, cycling and most importantly walking, enabling road infrastructure, clean available water, pollution, garbage-free surroundings, open public spaces for friends and family to congregate, nurturing nature, places for art and culture, healthy living and more. In essence, growth and development with a heart and inclusive thinking.
This vision is mocked at as being too utopian, idealistic and its proponents positioned as unrealistic environmentalists, tree-huggers, impediments to development and what have you.
I subscribe to the alternative vision. The steel flyover is a case in point where the two competing visions are firmly locked in contest. The government (current and earlier ones) believes that their solution to the visible, growing problems is infallible and the proposed steel flyover with the proposed alignment is the only way to forge ahead into the new world. The protesting citizen groups disagree with their 'no steel flyover’ demand bringing the clash of visions to a head.
In my view, the government’s (current and past) solution to a traffic problem in this case is on a very weak wicket. This solution promotes private vehicles over public transport and that surely cannot be the government’s intent.
It is pedestrian-unfriendly and will be a visual eyesore at the heart of the city. What has been foisted on citizens is a poorly conceived engineering project sold as a solution to traffic congestion. The meeting point at Hebbal flyover near Baptist hospital will be a veritable cross-traffic mess and the city centre will be a backed-up, gridlocked one with ugly structures all over the place, notwithstanding government responses.
There is a callous attitude about shrinking public spaces and cutting 812 trees in the city centre. Our trees define who we are. Bengaluru was a garden city because it had the green cover and open spaces that an earlier generation generously bequeathed us. Now we are brazen about doing away with our legacy and leaving the next generation with a concrete-cum-steel jungle connected with elevated structures.
Enlightened global cities are moving towards more open green spaces and walking paths. We seem to be headed the other way to doomsday. In a symbolic sense, if we persist with this flyover project in its current form, it will be the death of Bengaluru as we know it. And we will only have ourselves to blame. One hopes wise counsel prevails and the government rethinks the project.
We are faced with the relentless growth of population, be it people or private vehicles that puts enormous pressure on our environment, resources and rising expectations of citizens of the government of the day to meet their demands 24 X 7.
In this context, one vision is that the only way out is to build more infrastructure (unfortunately a lot of it mindlessly) whatever be its cost. If the route is unsustainable environmentally, it’s a necessary price we have to pay for growth and development. Anyone who mocks at this vision is branded anti-development and while it is easy to be armchair critics, the government has to finally bite the bullet and take decisions, however unpopular.
An alternative vision is that while growth and development are necessary, can we address it by being more sensitive to nature, scarce resources and core citizen views on what makes a city liveable. In this vision, citizens expect that they will have roadsides to walk safely, a mix of sustainable commute alternatives be it public transport, private vehicles, cycling and most importantly walking, enabling road infrastructure, clean available water, pollution, garbage-free surroundings, open public spaces for friends and family to congregate, nurturing nature, places for art and culture, healthy living and more. In essence, growth and development with a heart and inclusive thinking.
This vision is mocked at as being too utopian, idealistic and its proponents positioned as unrealistic environmentalists, tree-huggers, impediments to development and what have you.
I subscribe to the alternative vision. The steel flyover is a case in point where the two competing visions are firmly locked in contest. The government (current and earlier ones) believes that their solution to the visible, growing problems is infallible and the proposed steel flyover with the proposed alignment is the only way to forge ahead into the new world. The protesting citizen groups disagree with their 'no steel flyover’ demand bringing the clash of visions to a head.
In my view, the government’s (current and past) solution to a traffic problem in this case is on a very weak wicket. This solution promotes private vehicles over public transport and that surely cannot be the government’s intent.
It is pedestrian-unfriendly and will be a visual eyesore at the heart of the city. What has been foisted on citizens is a poorly conceived engineering project sold as a solution to traffic congestion. The meeting point at Hebbal flyover near Baptist hospital will be a veritable cross-traffic mess and the city centre will be a backed-up, gridlocked one with ugly structures all over the place, notwithstanding government responses.
There is a callous attitude about shrinking public spaces and cutting 812 trees in the city centre. Our trees define who we are. Bengaluru was a garden city because it had the green cover and open spaces that an earlier generation generously bequeathed us. Now we are brazen about doing away with our legacy and leaving the next generation with a concrete-cum-steel jungle connected with elevated structures.
Enlightened global cities are moving towards more open green spaces and walking paths. We seem to be headed the other way to doomsday. In a symbolic sense, if we persist with this flyover project in its current form, it will be the death of Bengaluru as we know it. And we will only have ourselves to blame. One hopes wise counsel prevails and the government rethinks the project.