<p>The recent announcement of satellite cities around Bengaluru by the state with a planetary metaphor had a deja’vu ring to it. Such announcements stretch back many decades under all dispensations with varying locations being suggested depending on the flavour of the moment — Nelamangala, Anekal, Kengeri, Ramanagaram, Bidadi, Hoskote, etc. It has not worked in the past and it is unlikely to work this time either since it has its origins in a piecemeal, point approach to the perceived problem over a larger integrated, holistic view of the nature of fix needed for the overall development of the state while improving the quality of living in Bengaluru.</p>.<p>First, some hard data in an era where it is hard to come by. Census 2001 revealed that for every 10 people being added to an urban area in Karnataka, Bengaluru had a share of 2.4 people. Census 2011 showed that out of every 10 people, 5.7 got added to Bengaluru alone increasing its dominance in terms of urban population share thereby reducing the share that goes to other Classes of Towns.</p>.<p>This growth in population includes natural growth, urban-to-urban migration and rural-to-urban migration. We will know the 2021 Census data in a few years but the trend will probably hold, given the harsh realities of Bengaluru in the last decade.</p>.<p>There is Zipf’s law that has its proponents and detractors for city distribution within a context of a nation or a state. Zipf’s law which follows a rank-size rule expects the largest urban centre to be twice as large as the second-largest urban centre, thrice as large as the third-largest urban centre and so on. Within Karnataka, the second-largest urban city, Mysuru has one-tenth of Bengaluru’s population. The fact that Bengaluru doesn’t fall anywhere close to this rule, proves the magnitude of concentrated growth here. </p>.<p>This author’s case is to think in terms of holistic regional development across the state over a pure Bengaluru-centric fix. To those seeking a solution that promotes ease of living, there are options available but as a starter course, we need a municipalisation strategy across the BBMP periphery where the haphazard developments on the outskirts of BBMP jurisdiction are rampant. Incidentally, BBMP is no knight in shining armour either, given the 110 villages added in 2009 still languish in infrastructure, not to mention the citizen woes beyond ORR.</p>.<p>Can we consider a totally new planning model for BIAAPA, another alphabet soup, that describes the extended area around the airport that has an area greater than BBMP’s current remit of 710<br />sq km? As one writes this, the failed model of unplanned development, narrow road links, lake encroachments, no respect for nature’s contours, site-based clearances (and violations) and low-rise sprawl are the norm. So, where we could have the good twin city in the next two decades, we are being ostrich-like, which will ensure an evil twin emerging given the ground forces in BIAAPA, while aiming for planetary relief which well might be needed!</p>.<p>For Karnataka, the state needs to plan and develop using a regional framework that goes beyond the current thinking of a few satellite centres around Bengaluru. Unless this forms part of the larger vision, any incremental fixes to making the city livable will lead to further influx causing infrastructural collapse and deterioration in the quality of living. One envisions 4-5 regions across Karnataka where a ‘Rurban’ (Rural-Urban continuum) area spreading maybe over 5,000 sq km that encompasses six to eight other urban clusters. The future lies in having ‘live and work’ clusters (with high local community involvement) that are urban nodes within the regional network. Any two nodes in the network should have high-speed connectivity (rail and road) that allows travelling (including airport access) within two hours.</p>.<p>The political leadership and the system will need a huge mindset change since it challenges all conventional thinking about jurisdictional boundaries of districts, silos, territorial claimants, administration planning and more. The competitive pressures between states to attract investment could provide a fillip to encouraging the regional framework. The Metropolitan Planning Council (as envisaged in the 74th amendment) framework that respects local elected bodies should be mandated to manage the affairs of the extended area around city jurisdictions.</p>.<p>To conclude, let us focus on BIAAPA development following a differential strategic planning approach while simultaneously implementing a regional development framework that delivers benefits to all sections across the state.</p>.<p><span class="italic">(The writer is a civic evangelist based in Bengaluru.)</span></p>
<p>The recent announcement of satellite cities around Bengaluru by the state with a planetary metaphor had a deja’vu ring to it. Such announcements stretch back many decades under all dispensations with varying locations being suggested depending on the flavour of the moment — Nelamangala, Anekal, Kengeri, Ramanagaram, Bidadi, Hoskote, etc. It has not worked in the past and it is unlikely to work this time either since it has its origins in a piecemeal, point approach to the perceived problem over a larger integrated, holistic view of the nature of fix needed for the overall development of the state while improving the quality of living in Bengaluru.</p>.<p>First, some hard data in an era where it is hard to come by. Census 2001 revealed that for every 10 people being added to an urban area in Karnataka, Bengaluru had a share of 2.4 people. Census 2011 showed that out of every 10 people, 5.7 got added to Bengaluru alone increasing its dominance in terms of urban population share thereby reducing the share that goes to other Classes of Towns.</p>.<p>This growth in population includes natural growth, urban-to-urban migration and rural-to-urban migration. We will know the 2021 Census data in a few years but the trend will probably hold, given the harsh realities of Bengaluru in the last decade.</p>.<p>There is Zipf’s law that has its proponents and detractors for city distribution within a context of a nation or a state. Zipf’s law which follows a rank-size rule expects the largest urban centre to be twice as large as the second-largest urban centre, thrice as large as the third-largest urban centre and so on. Within Karnataka, the second-largest urban city, Mysuru has one-tenth of Bengaluru’s population. The fact that Bengaluru doesn’t fall anywhere close to this rule, proves the magnitude of concentrated growth here. </p>.<p>This author’s case is to think in terms of holistic regional development across the state over a pure Bengaluru-centric fix. To those seeking a solution that promotes ease of living, there are options available but as a starter course, we need a municipalisation strategy across the BBMP periphery where the haphazard developments on the outskirts of BBMP jurisdiction are rampant. Incidentally, BBMP is no knight in shining armour either, given the 110 villages added in 2009 still languish in infrastructure, not to mention the citizen woes beyond ORR.</p>.<p>Can we consider a totally new planning model for BIAAPA, another alphabet soup, that describes the extended area around the airport that has an area greater than BBMP’s current remit of 710<br />sq km? As one writes this, the failed model of unplanned development, narrow road links, lake encroachments, no respect for nature’s contours, site-based clearances (and violations) and low-rise sprawl are the norm. So, where we could have the good twin city in the next two decades, we are being ostrich-like, which will ensure an evil twin emerging given the ground forces in BIAAPA, while aiming for planetary relief which well might be needed!</p>.<p>For Karnataka, the state needs to plan and develop using a regional framework that goes beyond the current thinking of a few satellite centres around Bengaluru. Unless this forms part of the larger vision, any incremental fixes to making the city livable will lead to further influx causing infrastructural collapse and deterioration in the quality of living. One envisions 4-5 regions across Karnataka where a ‘Rurban’ (Rural-Urban continuum) area spreading maybe over 5,000 sq km that encompasses six to eight other urban clusters. The future lies in having ‘live and work’ clusters (with high local community involvement) that are urban nodes within the regional network. Any two nodes in the network should have high-speed connectivity (rail and road) that allows travelling (including airport access) within two hours.</p>.<p>The political leadership and the system will need a huge mindset change since it challenges all conventional thinking about jurisdictional boundaries of districts, silos, territorial claimants, administration planning and more. The competitive pressures between states to attract investment could provide a fillip to encouraging the regional framework. The Metropolitan Planning Council (as envisaged in the 74th amendment) framework that respects local elected bodies should be mandated to manage the affairs of the extended area around city jurisdictions.</p>.<p>To conclude, let us focus on BIAAPA development following a differential strategic planning approach while simultaneously implementing a regional development framework that delivers benefits to all sections across the state.</p>.<p><span class="italic">(The writer is a civic evangelist based in Bengaluru.)</span></p>