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.