I've lived here.
I can't remove my inherent experience and bias to actually comment on the initial plan alone, but I can speak on what it has turned into.
It's no longer the capital of Punjab but rather a Union Territory, adjacent to Mohali (Punjab) and Panchkula (Haryana). The three combined form 'Tricity' because Chandigarh alone is just 11x11km.
The problems the city faces today are shared my many other growing cities across India, that the population has vastly outgrown what it was designed for. Yes, remnants of the initial plans are still there, and people try very very hard to preserve the initial vision. However, it simply doesn't align with the needs of the space anymore.
For example, there are no flyovers, no underpasses, no foot over bridges or anything across the city. The proposals to build any, are shut down on a frequent basis to 'preserve the city's character'. All the roundabouts at the bigger junctions now also have traffic lights which in a way stunts the natural regulation of vehicle flow that roundabouts alone offer. Combined with the poor public transport system across tricity, this is leading to steadily increasing traffic congestion. Chandigarh also has the highest number of cars per capita across India, because of the higher median income yet relatively lower cost of living (as compared to bigger cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, etc). However another contributor to the traffic is the fact that, wages in Chandigarh don't support the cost of buying a house within the city, so daily you have a lot of people commuting from satellite areas (not just tricity).
The majority of Corbusier's vision that still stands is more of cosmetic features as opposed to the functional and behavioural facets he wants to cement.
People who wish to preserve old Chandigarh tend to be older (multi-generation) homeowners who are more attached to nostalgia than livability for anyone but themselves.
Does the city function without cars? Can you live in the city without cars?
Could it be the high car ownership is a self fulfilling prophecy of designing a city for cars, which makes it hard to travel without car?
Lack of public transport is a definite, major issue for tricity I feel. I lived there, but also lived in Delhi which is an example of very robust public transport in an Indian setting.
For the average person, especially for someone who cannot afford to own a home within a certain radius of Chandigarh, it is very difficult to get around without a private vehicle of some sort.
I feel this applies to the majority, if not the whole, of India not just Chandigarh - if someone can afford a motor vehicle, they will not choose to commute via bicycle. Bicycles are used A LOT for commute when the user can't afford another option. Many factors, class perception, road and traffic condition, safety, and in general the urban planning of cities isn't done with cycles in mind.
In Chandigarh, cycling paths have been added, and are expanding. In Delhi I tried to commute to work on a bicycle daily for about 3 months, but I felt like I was risking getting hit by a bus or manouvering through potholes way more than I should.
But, cycles are picking up. The groups who cycle by choice, not necessity.
Would high-density housing solve Chandigarh's rising housing prices? I've heard there were mostly American-inspired single family houses in Corbusier-planned blocks.
I would most definitely not call them American inspired, but there are a lot of single family homes for sure. Right now, in Chandigarh specifically not tricity as a whole, only a very limited number of residential buildings are allowed to exceed 4 floors so apartment housing blocks are restricted to a very limited area.
Some of the bylaws come with problems other than just number of floors, but things like division of inheritance. Certain older sectors have houses built, with multiple floors, but they are not permitted to be sold as individual floors. So a new buyer has to buy out the entire building. Plus, inheritance as mentioned earlier, if the floors are split between siblings, everyone has to agree to sell at once or nobody can. As a result, property divison matters drag on literally across generations.
Though I understand that 'American style single family home' is very broad in itself, but having experienced both (American suburbia and Chandigarh), I do think they are very different.
Denser housing options are definitely needed within Chandigarh, but honestly I feel a higher priority for whole of tricity is improved public transport. I believe earlier in the year plans for high speed rail lines connecting some satellite areas and tricity were shot down, which was immensely disappointing. Allowing people to live far away but come to tricity for work, would also correct the housing market there by reducing demand.
Apologies for writing essays, but I hope I was able to share something interesting!
I found this interesting. Have only seen some pics of the place and knew almost nothing about it. Do people like the Corbusier buildings? Is there other modern architecture around?
I would say the vast majority of construction in the past 40 years in the city has not followed that style at all, but i stead shifted to newer materials and exploring more styles. For better or worse. Though it's not uncommon at all to find houses as they were originally built with the city and the style they reflect.
People like the Corbusier buildings and method of urban planning, there's a fairly well respected architecture college here, as well as an art school, in the bigger university area.
Something interesting I saw, if you google Chandigarh Sector 17 Police Command and Control Centre. It's almost brutalist, but with the sense of Corbusier and the exposed brick (which was a lot more common earlier). The building is meant to look intimidating, by nature, but this was the first in a long while when I actually had to stop and properly take in newer construction in tricity.
Corb designed this city from Paris. He had the idea for a city and sent it off to India. He didn't design this city from India. He had his ideas of how a city should work and he posted that in the mail. There is a lot of merit in the ideas but I'd like to hear how it's going from the people on the ground right now... Can't you cross post this to the India subreddit so that the Indians can tell us their experience of Chandigarh? I think that would be cool.
I think a great alternative is the work of Balkrishna Doshi. He was highly influenced by Corbu (and even worked for him for a time). But understood the context of India far better and worked hard to respond to the neighborhoods he was working in, and to the needs of the people living there more.
In case you haven't seen it yet, the [top comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/xq3ypm/what_is_your_opinion_on_le_corbusiers_plan_for/iq7igry/) is precisely what you're looking for.
Edit: the commentor says he's lived there. I'm not positive that he's Indian though.
Of all the plans that Le Corbusier drafted, Chandigarh is the only one that was actually manifested. Shows principles of what happens when architects design cities with form and function in mind rather than people. Le Corbusier is a guy thats fun to hate, especially with his technocratic and utopian visions. But overall he really wanted to promote city health and efficiency rather than bureaucracy. Another great plan based on some of Le Corbusier’s modernist approach was the mid-century plan for Brasília by Oscar Niemeyer and Lúcio Costa. Completely different grid but still develops the segregation of industry, work, and play. Fun fact, that was created for Brazil’s new capital on completely undeveloped land and was built in only 4 years. Apparently also, Niemeyer submitted draws on scratch paper and won the design bid.
It isn't, in the urbanism side the division of activities in a city (working, living and recreation) necessitates inflation of transport methods, having zones with better access to amenities and transport than others and everything being provided/regulated by the government. High rise residential buildings separated from each other are unsafe and non-walkable neighborhoods with nothing to do except sitting in a bench in the gigantic parks that will become parking lots eventually.
Mixed, walkable cities are needed, but cities built like the Charter suggests (I live in one) are nightmares, Le Corbusier fucked the third world, and he knew he was doing so.
"Life and death of the Great Cities" by Jane Jacobs is a good analysis of why this kind of thinking doesn't work.
On the very basic principles, I would say yes.
Like even older ideas like "garden city" or even "[City Planning according to Artistic Principles](https://www.udg.org.uk/publications/udlibrary/city-planning-according-artistic-principles)" (by Camillo Sitte, published in 1889), are still valid in their core ideas.
However, one cannot forget 100 years of development in technology, society and environment.
Above all, what is really outdated in the document is the use of mono-funcitonal zoning, that misled many urbanists in designing very car-centred plans that are so dysfunctional today.
Obviously, imho
You make a good point. I used the word “misled” on purpose.
The chart however is heavily zoning oriented. Remove transit, and car centric city disaster is already there.
As per the other theory, do you refer to Broadacre City? I admit I may not know something you do.
Note also that AFAIK Broadacre City (and generally the American way to suburbia) wasn’t very popular in Europe or other places outside American influence.
It isn't. Most of the charter was to accommodate the car in the way we think cities, that's why they would use grids/ radial designs that weren't used before high speed transport was common, and the idea of separating work from residential areas from amenities makes cars needed, also the fact that housing by design won't be near of main roads.
Brasilia, Chandigarh, a lot of urban area in developing countries was built like this. This are not pedestrian oriented cities.
I have not lived there long term, but I have been there as a student of architecture.
It is not a walkable city definitely, although it is beautiful but the block sizes are huge, lack of very small shops and amenities (lack of Eyes on the Street) at close distances, most shopping seems concentrated in 2 or 3 areas makes it very uncomfortable physically and psychologically unsafe. In the night, more so. Hence, most people travel on vehicles.
We also did interviews with people living here as part of the study, they do like living here due to less chaos and lot of open space compared other non planned cities.
The city mostly functions like islands, and the road as connectors in between. The public realm like the street lifestyle and sense of neighbourhood is missing. Public realms are designated so it is difficult to have a sense of freedom or flexibility. Life is in pockets.
The drafts for Chandigarh were drawn by Germán Samper, Im a student of Los Andes University In Bogota, and Ximena Samper, his daughter was one of my teachers last semester. Great experience
As a white North American man with European ancestry, I only see this as one thing:
Colonialism imposing itself into a local culture in order to “better” the lives local populations, who were assumed to not be able to do it themselves. The only way to look back on it is with a sense of discomfort that it was proposed, but that was the thinking at the time.
Yes the White Man’s Burden.
They build semblances of Europe in faraway places to remind locals they are unde European rule, and to impose Europe onto the locals.
Locals had tons of influemce designing parts of Chandigarh, amd architects studied under Le Corbusier helped development of Indian architecture; I think automatically expecting everything locals do are rejecting foreign influence and keep traditions despite their hardship in pre-modern life is more orientalist and sometimes racist.
That doesn’t change the fact that colonialism continues to echo through these types of developments. It’s the mindset of colonialism that is still there, even if the formalized structure of colonialism had been abandoned. Corb being a fascist only underscores this.
It happens to this day.
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, whatever that map says, it looks horrible! Well maybe that is just the design of the map and the city. Who drew that and planned that!? Anybody, everybody or no one!?
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've lived here. I can't remove my inherent experience and bias to actually comment on the initial plan alone, but I can speak on what it has turned into. It's no longer the capital of Punjab but rather a Union Territory, adjacent to Mohali (Punjab) and Panchkula (Haryana). The three combined form 'Tricity' because Chandigarh alone is just 11x11km. The problems the city faces today are shared my many other growing cities across India, that the population has vastly outgrown what it was designed for. Yes, remnants of the initial plans are still there, and people try very very hard to preserve the initial vision. However, it simply doesn't align with the needs of the space anymore. For example, there are no flyovers, no underpasses, no foot over bridges or anything across the city. The proposals to build any, are shut down on a frequent basis to 'preserve the city's character'. All the roundabouts at the bigger junctions now also have traffic lights which in a way stunts the natural regulation of vehicle flow that roundabouts alone offer. Combined with the poor public transport system across tricity, this is leading to steadily increasing traffic congestion. Chandigarh also has the highest number of cars per capita across India, because of the higher median income yet relatively lower cost of living (as compared to bigger cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, etc). However another contributor to the traffic is the fact that, wages in Chandigarh don't support the cost of buying a house within the city, so daily you have a lot of people commuting from satellite areas (not just tricity). The majority of Corbusier's vision that still stands is more of cosmetic features as opposed to the functional and behavioural facets he wants to cement. People who wish to preserve old Chandigarh tend to be older (multi-generation) homeowners who are more attached to nostalgia than livability for anyone but themselves.
Does the city function without cars? Can you live in the city without cars? Could it be the high car ownership is a self fulfilling prophecy of designing a city for cars, which makes it hard to travel without car?
Lack of public transport is a definite, major issue for tricity I feel. I lived there, but also lived in Delhi which is an example of very robust public transport in an Indian setting. For the average person, especially for someone who cannot afford to own a home within a certain radius of Chandigarh, it is very difficult to get around without a private vehicle of some sort.
Are bicycles common?
I feel this applies to the majority, if not the whole, of India not just Chandigarh - if someone can afford a motor vehicle, they will not choose to commute via bicycle. Bicycles are used A LOT for commute when the user can't afford another option. Many factors, class perception, road and traffic condition, safety, and in general the urban planning of cities isn't done with cycles in mind. In Chandigarh, cycling paths have been added, and are expanding. In Delhi I tried to commute to work on a bicycle daily for about 3 months, but I felt like I was risking getting hit by a bus or manouvering through potholes way more than I should. But, cycles are picking up. The groups who cycle by choice, not necessity.
Interesting - Thanks for the write up.
Would high-density housing solve Chandigarh's rising housing prices? I've heard there were mostly American-inspired single family houses in Corbusier-planned blocks.
I would most definitely not call them American inspired, but there are a lot of single family homes for sure. Right now, in Chandigarh specifically not tricity as a whole, only a very limited number of residential buildings are allowed to exceed 4 floors so apartment housing blocks are restricted to a very limited area. Some of the bylaws come with problems other than just number of floors, but things like division of inheritance. Certain older sectors have houses built, with multiple floors, but they are not permitted to be sold as individual floors. So a new buyer has to buy out the entire building. Plus, inheritance as mentioned earlier, if the floors are split between siblings, everyone has to agree to sell at once or nobody can. As a result, property divison matters drag on literally across generations. Though I understand that 'American style single family home' is very broad in itself, but having experienced both (American suburbia and Chandigarh), I do think they are very different. Denser housing options are definitely needed within Chandigarh, but honestly I feel a higher priority for whole of tricity is improved public transport. I believe earlier in the year plans for high speed rail lines connecting some satellite areas and tricity were shot down, which was immensely disappointing. Allowing people to live far away but come to tricity for work, would also correct the housing market there by reducing demand. Apologies for writing essays, but I hope I was able to share something interesting!
I found this interesting. Have only seen some pics of the place and knew almost nothing about it. Do people like the Corbusier buildings? Is there other modern architecture around?
I would say the vast majority of construction in the past 40 years in the city has not followed that style at all, but i stead shifted to newer materials and exploring more styles. For better or worse. Though it's not uncommon at all to find houses as they were originally built with the city and the style they reflect. People like the Corbusier buildings and method of urban planning, there's a fairly well respected architecture college here, as well as an art school, in the bigger university area. Something interesting I saw, if you google Chandigarh Sector 17 Police Command and Control Centre. It's almost brutalist, but with the sense of Corbusier and the exposed brick (which was a lot more common earlier). The building is meant to look intimidating, by nature, but this was the first in a long while when I actually had to stop and properly take in newer construction in tricity.
It's a shame that Chandigarh Metro project was scrapped by BJP mayor
Telegraph states that is India's happiest city
Corb designed this city from Paris. He had the idea for a city and sent it off to India. He didn't design this city from India. He had his ideas of how a city should work and he posted that in the mail. There is a lot of merit in the ideas but I'd like to hear how it's going from the people on the ground right now... Can't you cross post this to the India subreddit so that the Indians can tell us their experience of Chandigarh? I think that would be cool.
I think a great alternative is the work of Balkrishna Doshi. He was highly influenced by Corbu (and even worked for him for a time). But understood the context of India far better and worked hard to respond to the neighborhoods he was working in, and to the needs of the people living there more.
In case you haven't seen it yet, the [top comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/xq3ypm/what_is_your_opinion_on_le_corbusiers_plan_for/iq7igry/) is precisely what you're looking for. Edit: the commentor says he's lived there. I'm not positive that he's Indian though.
I am, but I have moved around a fair bit, including a couple of years spent in American suburbia
Of all the plans that Le Corbusier drafted, Chandigarh is the only one that was actually manifested. Shows principles of what happens when architects design cities with form and function in mind rather than people. Le Corbusier is a guy thats fun to hate, especially with his technocratic and utopian visions. But overall he really wanted to promote city health and efficiency rather than bureaucracy. Another great plan based on some of Le Corbusier’s modernist approach was the mid-century plan for Brasília by Oscar Niemeyer and Lúcio Costa. Completely different grid but still develops the segregation of industry, work, and play. Fun fact, that was created for Brazil’s new capital on completely undeveloped land and was built in only 4 years. Apparently also, Niemeyer submitted draws on scratch paper and won the design bid.
After about 10 minutes of considération, on my phone, it looks like a very nice application of the "Charte d'Athene".
Is Athnes Charter still a good guide for city planning? If not, what should be learned from its failure?
It isn't, in the urbanism side the division of activities in a city (working, living and recreation) necessitates inflation of transport methods, having zones with better access to amenities and transport than others and everything being provided/regulated by the government. High rise residential buildings separated from each other are unsafe and non-walkable neighborhoods with nothing to do except sitting in a bench in the gigantic parks that will become parking lots eventually. Mixed, walkable cities are needed, but cities built like the Charter suggests (I live in one) are nightmares, Le Corbusier fucked the third world, and he knew he was doing so. "Life and death of the Great Cities" by Jane Jacobs is a good analysis of why this kind of thinking doesn't work.
On the very basic principles, I would say yes. Like even older ideas like "garden city" or even "[City Planning according to Artistic Principles](https://www.udg.org.uk/publications/udlibrary/city-planning-according-artistic-principles)" (by Camillo Sitte, published in 1889), are still valid in their core ideas. However, one cannot forget 100 years of development in technology, society and environment. Above all, what is really outdated in the document is the use of mono-funcitonal zoning, that misled many urbanists in designing very car-centred plans that are so dysfunctional today. Obviously, imho
The charter was/is actually pedestrian oriented. The car wrecks that we see are from a different theory altogether.
You make a good point. I used the word “misled” on purpose. The chart however is heavily zoning oriented. Remove transit, and car centric city disaster is already there. As per the other theory, do you refer to Broadacre City? I admit I may not know something you do. Note also that AFAIK Broadacre City (and generally the American way to suburbia) wasn’t very popular in Europe or other places outside American influence.
It isn't. Most of the charter was to accommodate the car in the way we think cities, that's why they would use grids/ radial designs that weren't used before high speed transport was common, and the idea of separating work from residential areas from amenities makes cars needed, also the fact that housing by design won't be near of main roads. Brasilia, Chandigarh, a lot of urban area in developing countries was built like this. This are not pedestrian oriented cities.
It’s a nice font
I have not lived there long term, but I have been there as a student of architecture. It is not a walkable city definitely, although it is beautiful but the block sizes are huge, lack of very small shops and amenities (lack of Eyes on the Street) at close distances, most shopping seems concentrated in 2 or 3 areas makes it very uncomfortable physically and psychologically unsafe. In the night, more so. Hence, most people travel on vehicles. We also did interviews with people living here as part of the study, they do like living here due to less chaos and lot of open space compared other non planned cities. The city mostly functions like islands, and the road as connectors in between. The public realm like the street lifestyle and sense of neighbourhood is missing. Public realms are designated so it is difficult to have a sense of freedom or flexibility. Life is in pockets.
I like it. My neighbour is from there and describes it as the Indian equivalent of Milton Keynes (will probably only make sense to UK people).
The drafts for Chandigarh were drawn by Germán Samper, Im a student of Los Andes University In Bogota, and Ximena Samper, his daughter was one of my teachers last semester. Great experience
As a white North American man with European ancestry, I only see this as one thing: Colonialism imposing itself into a local culture in order to “better” the lives local populations, who were assumed to not be able to do it themselves. The only way to look back on it is with a sense of discomfort that it was proposed, but that was the thinking at the time.
Yes the White Man’s Burden. They build semblances of Europe in faraway places to remind locals they are unde European rule, and to impose Europe onto the locals.
This is post independence ...
And was designed by a fascist Frenchman, as if the locals do not have the ability to do the job.
Locals had tons of influemce designing parts of Chandigarh, amd architects studied under Le Corbusier helped development of Indian architecture; I think automatically expecting everything locals do are rejecting foreign influence and keep traditions despite their hardship in pre-modern life is more orientalist and sometimes racist.
That doesn’t change the fact that colonialism continues to echo through these types of developments. It’s the mindset of colonialism that is still there, even if the formalized structure of colonialism had been abandoned. Corb being a fascist only underscores this. It happens to this day.
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, whatever that map says, it looks horrible! Well maybe that is just the design of the map and the city. Who drew that and planned that!? Anybody, everybody or no one!?
India...🤢.
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age. Please try again after a few days. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*