MODERN PLANNING IN PAKISTAN AND ABROAD

AR-309: ARCHITECTURE AND TOWN PLANNING (B)
By:
RAVINDAR KUMAR
Assistant Professor
Department of Architecture and Planning
NED University of Engineering and Technology
Karachi

LECTURE NO. 05
TOPIC: MODERN PLANNING IN PAKISTAN AND ABROAD

Introduction:
Before beginning of description about, “Modern Planning in Pakistan and Abroad” it is important to understand the term ‘Modern’ and the phrase ‘Modern Planning’. The understanding of these two concepts would lead us to make the beginning of this topic. Secondly it would be interesting to develop a historical perspective of planning attempts made abroad in western world and then in Pakistan. Particularly; with reference to Master Planning, development of planning institutions in Pakistan and development pattern of settlements in major cities and towns of Pakistan would clearly spell out the theme of current lecture.

Modernity and Modern:
Modernity is a term that refers to the modern era. It is distinct from modernism, and, in different contexts, refers to cultural and intellectual movements of the period c. 1630-1940. The term "modern" can refer to many different things. Colloquially, it can refer in a general manner to the 20th century. For historians, the Early Modern Period refers to the period roughly from 1500 to 1800, with the Modern era beginning sometime during the 18th century. In this schema, industrialization during the 19th century marks the first phase of modernity, while the 20th century marks the second. Some schools of thought hold that modernity ended in the late 20th century, replaced by post-modernity, while others would extend modernity to cover the developments denoted by post-modernity and into the present.[1]

Modernism and Modern Planning:
Modernism describes an array of cultural movements rooted in the changes in Western society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The term covers a series of reforming movements in art, architecture, music, literature and the applied arts which emerged during this period. At its most basic level, Modernism could be described as the experimentation and fragmentation of the human experience, characterized by deviations from the norms of society.[2]

It wasn't until the 1920s that modernism began to surface. Based on the ideas of Le Corbusier and utilising new skyscraper building techniques, the modernist city stood for the elimination of disorder, congestion and the small scale, replacing them instead with preplanned and widely spaced freeways and tower blocks set within gardens.

There were plans for large scale rebuilding of cities, such as the Plan Voisin (based on Le Corbusier's Ville Contemporaine), which proposed clearing and rebuilding most of central Paris. No large-scale plans were implemented until after World War II however. Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, housing shortages caused by war destruction led many cities around the world to build substantial amounts of government-subsidized housing blocks. Planners at the time used the opportunity to implement the modernist ideal of towers surrounded by gardens. The most prominent example of an entire modernist city is Brasilia, constructed between 1956 and 1960 in Brazil.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, many planners were coming to realize that the imposition of modernist clean lines and a lack of human scale also tended to sap vitality from the community. This was expressed in high crime and social problems within many of these planned neighbourhoods. Modernism can be said to have ended in the 1970s when the construction of the cheap, uniform tower blocks ended in many countries, such as Britain and France. Since then many have been demolished and in their way more conventional housing has been built. Rather than attempting to eliminate all disorder, planning now concentrates on individualism and diversity in society and the economy. This is the post-modernist era.[3]

Modern Planning Abroad:
In order to understand the modern planning abroad one may refer to encyclopedia of urban planning by Whittick Arnold and read the contemporary theories and practices in the western world. It narrates that since 16th century the mode of planning cities is divided in seven main categories.

i. The Authoritarian Planning
ii. The Utilitarian Planning
iii. The Romantic Planning
iv. The Utopian Planning
v. The Technocratic Utopia
vi. The Technocratic Planning
vii. The Organic Planning

Following is the detailed description of these planning types.

Authoritarian Planning:
It is basically a geometric planning which emerged in 16th century onwards under priestly dictators & absolute monarchs who wanted to create an urban setting which can emphasize their power structure in society. The principles of this kind of planning include a long street, uniform blank front and an open plaza for a monument or obelisk. However, when same principles applied to city as a whole as a ideal “geometric” plans for political capitals i.e. Washington, Brasilia, Islamabad the plan become truly functional setting only for government. Such design of cities can only be maintained through legal regulations and in long run it must be modified & rebuild. Because these plans are made by ignoring social & economic needs. The major fault in authoritarian planning is not in its geometry but false assumptions of centralized power that ignores the important functions of neighborhoods. Although the authoritarian planning neglects the essential functions of city, however the gift that occurs through geometric scheme is of parks and open spaces; or a main boulevard or some important roads. The most striking example of authoritarian planning is in Baroque, which is a star like fortification which is the only and ephemeral contribution of geometric planning.

The basic element in geometric planning is a square or rectangular blocks with streets and avenues composed by assembling and extending such blocks. The major advantage of this grid iron plan is open spaces provided as a setting for major public buildings. The disadvantage of this planning is the automatic extension by this method that raise the cost by increasing the number and area for unnecessary streets & pavements whose services crates a heavy burden on municipality, because they have to provide transportation facilities water, sewerage, schools & health facilities for whole area.

The Utilitarian Planning:

With the continuation geometric planning there emerges the utilitarian planning which are basically the repercussions of geometric extension of the town. It is also termed as commercial utilitarian planning because its major objective is to maximize the returns from sale & rent. Since last three centuries large number of new towns or town extensions developed on this theory that the ideal municipal facilities should be provided on open land where the large population to be housed with maximum use of available space for built structures & minimum space availability for parks, play ground & open public spaces. The other aspect of utilitarian planning is the encouragement of private sector investments in the development. On paper the grid iron plan shows a strict order & harmony of built structures. However the three dimensional building structures when emerged out of these plans it shows a monotonous & confusing pattern with too many similar open spaces, streets & avenues.

The utilitarian planning has been carried out on day to day basis by the municipal engineer, the land developer, the transportation expert, the commercial builder and real estate investor with no thought of public welfare or municipal economy. Originally the utilitarian planning is the product of laissez faire economics which assumes that order & purpose would emerge out of unrestricted private competition. The utilitarian planning also concentrate on increasing the mechanical facilities to accommodate expanding population with the sacrifice of other social functions. Therefore utilitarian planning lead to misuse of whole environment, i.e. the sewerage & industrial waste poured into near by water channels which destroy a vital recreational space. The utilitarian planning leads to the profit making process, and the result of utilitarian planning emerges in the form of inefficient urban spaces, congestion, more built up areas then open spaces and lacking of domestic amenities. Considering these repercussions of utilitarian planning it is quite vital that it should be regulated and a coherent pattern should be superimposed upon its random structures. It requires a series of municipal regulations to control the land uses through limitations of heights & density of buildings. Therefore zoning regulations are quite vital to curb the utilitarian planning.

Romantic Planning:

When the utilitarian planning practice become supreme in cities, there occurred a revolt against it and a new philosophy took shape in the form of a Romantic movement in city planning. The Romantic planning rejects the concepts of life that makes a human being & its environment subservient to either political power structure or mechanization in the development of a city. Positively the Romantic Movement in planning restored the essential human values excluded from the industrial and autocratic complex. These human values were associated with rural life with more open spaces, clean air sunlight, vegetation & other rural habitat which is favorable for a child to grow in a healthy environment. Simultaneously the romanticism in planning restored the historic continuity to urban forms and institutions which was destroyed for private profit.
The Romantic Movement restored the historic heritage through fresh appreciation of natural landscape which was quite different from the formal geometric patterns. In Romantic planning they abandon the repetitive blocks, unbroken street fronts and created for large units and designed such roads that confirm their width & pavements, as per population and traffic density. They followed contours instead of grading the land. The romantic planner reduced the cost of development and was able to afford more open space for gardens. In this way he beats the utilitarian planner at his own financial game. The other innovation in urban design that was derived from romantic planning movement is of a “Super Block”. It was spontaneously introduced in a Boston area around the middle of 19th century. The super block is not merely a greatly enlarged dimension of usual rectangular block but instead of placing houses only on perimeter it grouped them in cul-de-sacs & clusters. The effect that emerged out of super block is reduction of needless traffic streets, increase in the area of gardens & parks an assurance of greater privacy and quite environment. From historical point of view the Romantic Movement was developed in a theory by Camillo Sitte in his work entitled, “the art of building cities”. In his book Sitte examined that medieval and renaissance city and proved its aesthetic failure due to more rigid kind of geometric planning, with overemphasis on symmetry, uniformity & centralization. Mr. Sitte; shown that irregularity in placing public movements increase its aesthetics where both aesthetically & socially attractive than large avenues framed by uniform buildings designed to increase the speed of vehicles & machine like precision. Mr. Camillo Sitte contributed the concept of diversified neighborhoods, markets, squares & green open spaces rather than uniform avenues & block as the basic unit of planning. These principles were further elaborated by Mr.: Robert Unwin in his book “Town planning in practice” in 1909 as well as in his own planning.

Utopian Planning:
The Utopian planning at first refers to the Thomas Moore’s classic work of Utopia in which he exhibits the elements of all three types of Authoritarian, utilitarian and romantic planning. However as an expression his work discussed about a centralized political authority & geometric formalism as well as his humane views on city in which he describes a neighborhood unit as a center of domestic and civic life. A part from Thomas Moore there is other Utopian planners who have given their concepts on utopian city or an ideal city both in form and function. Such as Robert Owen given an ideal scheme of New Lanark, savannah, Georgia & Melbourne with a large surrounding green belt. Then there is Mr. Walter Burley Griffin who planned the capital of Australia, Canberra in which he suggested the generous scale of suburban planning to new metropolitan. Then came; the Franck Lloyd Wright’s scheme for Broad Acre city where each family gets 13 acres of land within a rigid Grid of lots & roads. The other characteristic of Utopian planning was evident from the work of James silk Buckingham’s concept of “Victoria” and Richardson’s ideal town of Hygiene. Thus the concept of ideal town Utopia was carried out to such extreme that it has ultimately became utopia or no place.

The most successful example of utopia urban planning was that of Sir Ebenezer Howard’s project of Garden city, in which the out line & intention was purely an urban life with its social and economic diversity. In theory the Ebenezer Howard clearly spell out the limitations of authoritarian, utilitarian and utopian planning, however his concepts were basically of an organic planning. His explanatory diagrams were not in any sense a town plan but the later addition of shopping mall & neighborhood unit that developed until 1947 shown a basis for new town design. Before going into details of his ideals of organic planning one must understand the mechanical by-product of utopian theory i.e. the technocratic planning.

Technocratic Utopia:
The terms technocratic utopia was first brought into literature by Bowler Litton through his work “The Coming Race”. The inhabitance of this utopia lived underground & utilizes nuclear energy for both work and destruction. In this kind of utopia all human functions and activities was set up in a large mega structure where every detail of life is subject to absolute autocratic control. The technocratic plan mainly centered on the technological inventions in construction method & materials where as the organization of city will be on a linear pattern along a spinal transportation artery which forms continuous horizontal zones on both sides. Or the creation of simple vertical structure of hundred or two hundred stories high. The most popular and influential form of technocratic ideal was of Le Corbusier in “The City of the Future” first published in 1924 as urbanism. In his conceptual proposal of Paris Le Corbusier formed a central core of office buildings 60 stories high, widely separated and served by multiple to similar apartment houses. Basically his concept addressed the contemporary urban real estate speculation, autocratic as his city of future.

Technocratic Planning:
The technocratic planning describes a process which is going on from last one century; where mechanical services are increasing with huge costs for providing water from distant sources, disposal system of sewerage & garbage, paved streets, rapid transportation systems, tunnels, bridges, multilane highways & large parking lots. The aim of technocratic planning & ideas is to make every urban activity, a function of a machine. In theory technocratic planning assumes that all human problems are open to a technological solution and all human needs can be met by invention of a mechanical or electronic device that can stimulate them & satisfy them or divert them to other channels. The technocratic planning suggests the projects for great urban mega structures, underwater, under ground or a mile high tower in the air with maximized totalitarian control. Therefore if the technocratic planning would be widely adopted it would spell out the end of a city and permanently banish the art of town planning.

Organic Planning:
The concepts of organic planning sprung out from rich knowledge of urban past and better sociological understanding of the nature of cities. These are not considered as a work of art but the focal point in development and expression of a culture. The organic means well organized with a dynamic balance. Therefore organic planning seeks structural answer to every function of city which is expressed in both surface plan & design of buildings with needs & ideals of a community. The organic planning conserves past urban forms & prepares them to accommodate future needs. For example the garden city plan of Ebenezer Howard is the first diagrammatic expression of organic form. The principles of organic planning never been formulated completely. Because they embody such urban complexity which can not be expressed on a purely two-dimensional plan; whereas even in three dimensional additions of building structures still the 4th dimension of time remains ill accounted. The essential nature of the organic planning can be best revealed through historic cities in which growth and development takes place throughout centuries with the 4th dimension of time i.e. Venice, Rome, New Delhi & Mecca can be the best examples. Successive generations starting city building from one point to another through gradual improvement & addition is the specialty of organic planning in which the need plays an important role in the style of a particular era. Because no single generation, no single mind, no single architect or planner could have forecast and designed the final result of the city design. Finally one must not forget the work of Sir Patrick Geddes who was by profession a biologist but made conscious efforts to develop theory of organic planning.

In his reports on Indian cities he showed how much richer the texture of city became when all its functions like civic, religious, domestic & economic were tactfully embraced & integrated in city design He describes that organic planning requires an intimate knowledge of urban culture, human needs, purposes & means with cooperative participation & critical judgment by the community while new plans for city are under process. If modern technology releases working time for such joint civic enterprises, the organic may replace utilitarian, autocratic and technocratic planning as a new order of today.

Modern Planning in Pakistan:
The issue of modern planning in Pakistan is a little bit complex because there is no book available on this issue till date that describes modern planning in Pakistan. There are different authors/ researchers of urban planning in Pakistan who have generated different research papers that are not directly related to this topic but contain some relevant data or allied information. In the following the description of such endeavors is outlined in a logical manner so as the reader may understand the complexity of this issue.

Master Planning in Pakistan – A Historical Perspective[4]
Legal Framework:
There has been no Town and Country Planning law at national level in Pakistan. In the beginning, the only legislation with provision for the preparation of master plans by local councils was the Municipal Administration Ordinance (MAO) 1960. However, this Ordinance did not say anything about plan sanctioning and implementing authorities. Nor it contained any provisions requiring the revision of the plans as and when needed. The MAO 1960 was replaced by Provincial Local Government Ordinance (PLGO) 1979. It simply carried forward the provisions of MAO 1960 about master planning in almost the same words. Like the MAO 1960, only the urban local councils were required to prepare master plans for their jurisdiction under the PLGO 1979 and it was also not mandatory to do so. Thus rural areas of the country received no planning attention even under this Ordinance. However, it was in 1997 when the rural local councils were also given a non mandatory task to prepare and implement master plans for areas under their jurisdiction. Unfortunately, none of the rural local councils could prepare any master plan due mainly to lack of interest of decision makers, and weak institutional capacity.

Recently, the Local Government Ordinance 2001 has replaced the PLGO 1979 as part of the devolution plan of the current military regime. Under the 2001 Ordinance, a new system of Local Government has been established, creating three tiers of local government administration. Each province has been divided into Districts by eliminating the previous rural-urban divide. Each district comprises a few Tehsils/Towns which are again divided into areas of Union Councils. Staff at each administrative level has been appointed by abolition and merger of different existing institutions functioning at provincial and local levels, for better governance at the local level. Thus the Tehsil Municipal Administrations (TMA) has replaced the urban (e.g. Municipal/Town Committees) and rural (e.g. Zila Councils) local councils. All the TMAs in a district are administratively linked with District Government. However, in case of provincial capitals, a City District Government (CDG) has been established by dividing the city into different Town Municipal Administrations. Under the 2001 Ordinance, all the TMAs are required to prepare a master plan for their respective areas and get it approved from their respective Councils. However, this Ordinance does not provide for spatial planning at the district level.

Provisions for master planning can also be found as one of the function of various development authorities or planning agencies in their respective Acts / Ordinances under which these authorities or agencies were created primarily in large cities. For example, these include Karachi Development (KDA) Authority Order 1957, Lahore Development Authority (LDA) Act 1975, and Quetta Development Authority Ordinance 1978. Until recently these development authorities have been working in parallel with local government institutions often with overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of planning powers. Since the reorganization of local government in 2001, these development authorities have been made part of the District Government but as a separate entity.

Preparation and Implementation of Master Plans
Recognizing the need to arrest the ugliness and haphazard growth of big cities of Pakistan and to guide the future development in a planned manner, the Government of Pakistan envisaged in the second five year plan (1960-65) the need of preparation of master plans for eleven major cities in the then West Pakistan. Lahore being the provincial metropolis of the biggest province topped the list of selected cities. Hence, the preparation of Master Plan for Greater Lahore marked the beginning of master planning in Pakistan in 1961. The second Master plan was prepared for Karachi during 1970 to 1974.[5] Afterwards a number of master plans have also been produced for various cities of the country including, for instance, Quetta, Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad and Multan. A brief review of some of these master plans suggests that these have adopted the most conventional notion of planning process by Patrick Geddes,[6] that is:

Conduct a SURVEY,
Do an ANALYSIS and then
Make a PLAN

Most of these plans were prepared with foreign assistance. Besides, a large number of what may be termed as mini master plans have also been prepared under the name of Outline Development Plan (ODP) using local technical and financial resources. For instance, in case of Punjab province, the defunct Housing and Physical Planning Department (Recently reorganized as Punjab Housing and Town Planning Agency (PHATA) at the provincial level) has prepared around 125 ODPs for various towns of the Punjab. Similarly, the Project Management Unit (PMU) of Housing and Physical Planning Department undertook `Feasibility Studies and Urban Master Planning of Ten Cities of Punjab’ Project during 1993-94 through a consortium of foreign and local consultants under World Bank funded Third Urban Development Project.[7] More recently, a new master plan for Lahore titled ‘Integrated Master Plan for Lahore – 2021’ (IMPL) has been approved.

Whatever the institutional set up and plan preparation approach have been, the dilemma is that all these types of plans could not be and still are not being fully implemented.[8] Hence, billions of rupees, time and human resources are wasted on this master plan making exercises in the country. And there seems to be no end to it. For instance, various sections of the Provincial Local Government Ordinances promulgated in 2001 provide for preparation of master plans for areas under every Tehsil/Town Municipal Administration (TMA) in all the provinces. This is encouraging and does point towards intention of the Government to manage and guide the growth of urban and rural settlements in a planned manner. But lack of implementation of the earlier plans really poses a challenge for all the stakeholders particularly for the concerned government agencies and the professionals involved in the plan making process to avoid failures of implementation with the new plans. A thorough investigation aimed at determining the root causes of implementation failure and pre-conditions for the successful implementation of master plans is need of the hour and can be helpful for improving master planning in Pakistan in the years to come.

References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism
Gates, Henry Louis 2004. The Norton Anthology of African American Literature. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
[3] For details please log on to the website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_planning
[4] Rizwan Hameed and Obaidullah Nadeem (2006) “Challenges of Implementing Urban Master Plans: The Lahore Experience” Published in PROCEEDINGS OF WORLD ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 17 DECEMBER 2006 ISSN 1307-6884 PWASET VOLUME 17 DECEMBER 2006 ISSN 1307-6884 336 © 2006 www.waset.org From: http://www.waset.org/pwaset/v17/v17-65.pdf
[5] M. I. Mirza, “A Review of the Master Plan for Karachi Metropolitan Region,” in Proc. National Seminar on Planning for Urban Development in the Developing Countries with Special Reference to Pakistan, Lahore, 1978
[6] B. Philip, The Worlds of Patrick Geddes: Biologist, Town Planner, Re-educator, Peace-warrior, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. 1978
[7] HP & EPD., “Feasibility Studies and Urban Master Planning of Ten Cities of Punjab,” Lahore, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Government of the Punjab, 1994
[8] W. A. Butt, “An Evaluation of Outline Development Plan with Special Reference to Gujranwala Division,” M.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of City & Regional Planning, University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, 1991