MINUTES OF THE 1613th MEETING OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2021.

A.   The minutes of the 1612th meeting of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 20.09.2021 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1611th meeting held on 16.09.2021.1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1611th meeting held on 16.09.2021 were discussed.
Noted by the Commission.

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1Completion plans proposal in respect of Existing Guest House for UP Govt. at Plot no.3, Sector-13, Dwarka.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 01, 2016, and the NOC for the completion plan proposal was not approved in the meeting held on July 29, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal of NOC for completion was received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-27072158017 dated 03.08.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, it is found acceptable.

NOC acceptedThe Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

2Plans in respect of Feasibility of corridor connecting INA to Airport and traffic improvement  around 9 GPRA colonies

1. The proposal was forwarded by the GNCTD PWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the proposal including a mismatch in the nomenclature of the proposal, overall detailing and presentation of the proposal etc.,  the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The nomenclature of the study is incorrect as the subject suggests the feasibility of corridor connecting INA to Airport but the project report indicates segment from Sarai Kale Khan to IGI Airport. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, it shall be clearly renamed to the correct nomenclature (as mentioned in the project report submitted) to avoid future ambiguities.

b) The proposal has been submitted in a haphazard manner. It shall be sequenced segment by segment, along with contextual details so that it can be comprehended in a step-by-step manner. The submission should include an appropriate number of key plans/other details to explain the segment/location being discussed as it has multiple locations in the city.

c) The Commission observed that the proposals should not be considered only for problems pertaining to engineering solutions of traffic/transportation in the form of flyovers etc. but should also be seen into the larger context of a cityscape focusing on its spatial impact and experience of the pedestrian.  It should be considered as a large-scale intervention in the city fabric, and its impact on the urban form and the surrounding areas, particularly on edges shall not be neglected.

d) The Commission opines that the proposals of this scale cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities. The 3D views shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings, for a better understanding of the proposal in the existing environment to make it clearer.

e) The proposal shall also be seen from the perspective of motorists driving and passengers riding experience. All elements need to be worked out at an initial stage and nothing should be done as an afterthought, not in context, to the design. An overall comprehensive scheme needs to be formulated to avoid any additions/alterations at a later stage. Details of various street elements like Light poles, railings, crash guards, noise cutters, signage for wayfinding, pedestrian facilities, cyclist facilities and appropriate provisions for rainwater harvesting need to be submitted. Rainwater pipes etc. shall ensure to be screened.

f) As the proposed elevated corridor connects the city airport, it would be used by tourists (local/international). Thus, its design should be such that it becomes an inviting experience for the users (due to its large span) by means of interesting design elements like work of art, materials used for soundproofing, structural framework, introducing a cultural, urban, visual and aesthetically pleasing experience of the capital city of Delhi to the visitors and not become an eye-sore to the city fabric.

g) The abundance of spaces is available under the elevated corridor. Also, these spaces may be used for landscaping, rainwater harvesting, and utilities that can be accommodated and are required for the surrounding areas. As the stretch would be elevated at some places, the abundance of spaces would be available under the elevated roads. They shall be designed and put to appropriate use including landscaped greens, housing utilities, work of art etc. to ensure that they do not become dumping grounds or be encroached so as not to spoil the overall urban and visual aesthetics of the area. 

h) The elevated stretch crosses some prominent landmarks, and its built form would have an impact on the surrounding aesthetics, thus an appropriate number of annotated 3d views should be submitted from various angles, highlighting their impact.

i) A comprehensive landscape plan including the area on elevated roads etc. including the area below elevated roads for the complete scheme needs to be worked out and submitted along with a sufficient number of Self-explanatory 3D views. The details of trees affected for the proposal, if any, shall also be submitted.

j) The project discusses the need of decongesting the entire stretch along GPRA colonies and providing seamless connections along them and also emphasises the need of providing safe pedestrian connections. It states that:

“……certain traffic management measures to supplement the improvement schemes have also been recommended as a part of this intervention…..”

But the submitted drawings do not portray the elements/design interventions used to provide safe pedestrian connections, as the scale of the long, continuous structures would be massive and need dedicated/marked/identified pedestrian crossings at regular intervals.

k) As the idea is to connect GPRA colonies with the corridor, proper plans marking the connections clearly with the main entry gates/access nodes to the alignment point on the elevated road (pedestrian uses) to be marked so as to understand the connectivity around the main residential areas. Integration with pedestrian facilities is not visible in the submission i.e. Connections with bus-stops, street furniture etc. is missing in the submission.

l) The report mentions MLCP being proposed at various locations to compensate for the need for the parking taken away due to development, but their location/ any relevant detail is not included in the submission.

m) The submitted plan/sections for various locations do not have dimensions (widths, lengths etc.), thus the scale/division of spaces is not understood. Also, they need to be more detailed clearly showing the facilities/utilities proposed in the section. More detailed sections shall be cut at a pedestrian level to understand activity integration with surrounding land uses. An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-sections) along with the elevational heights of the surrounding development etc. be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme in the actual environment.

n) The Commission opines that a proposal of this magnitude has the potential to display work of public art imparting character, identity, culture, traditions, and the spirit of the city. The possibility of various options of a theme-based public artwork shall be explored and submitted. The provisions made for the work of art shall be planned keeping in mind the scale, material and significance in the form of Murals, sculptures, art & architecture, rich cultural heritage of the city etc. as appropriate, to make the spaces lively & inviting.

3. Taking into consideration the facts enumerated above, the Commission opines that the information furnished by the architect are insufficient and inadequate to examine the important proposal of such scale and size. As the scale of the proposal is huge, a detailed 3D walkthrough shall be submitted to explain the scheme better.

4. In view of the above and taking into consideration the overall urban aesthetic, visual quality, scale, proportions, and size of the proposal, the architect is suggested to make a detailed presentation (online along with a 3d walkthrough), before the Commission after adhering to all above observations, along with a pointwise incorporation/reply to enable it to examine the proposal holistically.

Not approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

3Revised Building plans proposal in respect of GPOA – 2 (General Pool Office Accommodation) Building at K.G. Marg.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.

DeferredThe Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

4Building plans proposal in respect of Redevelopment of Kothi no. 6, Rajaji Marg.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 13, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for redevelopment received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the proposal. The proposal was examined along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-09042162007 dated 04.06.2021. Based on the discussion held, revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The 3d views show the presence of a projection at lintel level running around the entire building. The Commission observed that the projection of the sloping roof is also running parallel just above the lintel projection. Thereby creating two projections running parallel to each other. It is suggested to deepen the sloped roof so as make it a deep overhang that shall also act as a sunshade eliminating the necessity of lintel projection over windows.

b) Also, it is observed that the upper line of the parapet of the sloping roof (on the first floor) is visually conflicting with the sill level which looks awkward. It is suggested to bring down the parapet top of the sloping roof to the sill level to match and create a visual continuation.

c) The numbering on the first floor of the staircase is incorrect. To be co-related with the section and be corrected and re-submitted.

d) The spiral staircase is not reflected in the terrace plan and as seen from elevation 4, it can be seen that it continues to the terrace level. Thus, it shall be co-related and re-submitted.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Not approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

5Revised Building plans proposal in respect of Multi-level parking with Commercial Development at Pitampura MRTS Station, Madhuban Chowk. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 01, 2017. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-24032122011 dated 19.04.2021, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects including not addressing two-wheeler parking provisions adequately in the scheme. Based on the discussion held, and the proposal submitted for consideration, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the parking appears to have been designed for cars only with no provision for two-wheeler parking on any floor.  The Commission opines that the proposed multi-level parking would be used extensively by the metro users to park their vehicles (including cars, two-wheelers). Accordingly, it is suggested to make parking provisions exclusively for two-wheelers in the basement etc. For the same, a ramp can be provided to access the basement, which would be dedicated for the movement of two-wheelers only (as a car lift may not be used for the same).

b) Also, the number for parking mentioned in the parking calculation does not match when co-related in the layout plans (all floors). Thus, it shall be corrected and resubmitted.

c) Some of the areas on the fifth, sixth and terrace floor plan (Eastern curved edge) are marked as parking areas, which cannot be accessed by a car due to design constraints. The same is to be rectified and resubmitted with corrected parking provisions and numbers.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Concept not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

6Building plans proposal in respect of Redevelopment of National School of Drama at Bahawalpur House, 1 Bhagwan Das Road, Mandi House. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 22, 2020, specific observations were given. The Commission accepted the revised concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 08, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-21062127052 dated 17.07.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the concept of the proposal is found to be accepted.

Concept accepted.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

The following were present at the Meeting of the Commission held on Thursday, September 23, 2021, from 02.30 PM onwards:

1. Shri Ajit Pai, Chairman, DUAC

2. Prof. (Dr) Mandeep Singh, Member, DUAC

3. Shri Ashutosh Agarwal, Member, DUAC

4. Smt. Nivedita Pande, Member, DUAC