“Where is the infrastructure, and for whose benefit are the multistoreyed buildings being planned?” Angry residents, including original settlers of the city, have questioned the move to allow high-rises in Chandigarh, especially the proposal for stilt-plus-five-floor buildings in the Manimajra pocket under the draft amendments to the Chandigarh Master Plan.The Chandigarh Master Plan-2031, formally notified in April 2015, serves as the guiding blueprint for managing the city’s growth, heritage and infrastructure till 2031.Senior advocate and one of the original settlers, ML Sarin, told The Indian Express, “In my opinion, the proposed changes will not lead to the ‘development’ but destruction of our City Beautiful. Development, as I understand it, means improving the existing infrastructure, providing parking for its 1.3 per capita vehicles, ensuring affordable public transport through frequently plying buses, as planned by Le Corbusier, reducing the number of vehicles in an overcrowded urban area, improving the environment so that all of us can breathe clean air, and ensuring proper civic amenities like running water, electricity and garbage disposal. The existing population should be happy. Is it? I don’t think so, though we have not been asked.”He added, “Moreover, for whose benefit are the multistoreyed buildings planned? Not for residents of Chandigarh, surely. For outsiders? If yes, then where is the need to destroy the fundamental principle of low-rise buildings in Chandigarh? Build them elsewhere after detailed planning. Please leave Chandigarh as it is. For decades, I have been saying, ‘Make 50 more Chandigarhs, but please don’t destroy this one.’”Quoting the Edict of Chandigarh, Sarin said: “The seed of Chandigarh is well sown. It is for the citizens to see that the tree flourishes.” He alleged that citizens, especially those who have been living in the city for decades, had not been consulted.“Outsiders, who are at the helm of affairs and know nothing about the ethos of the city, are calling the shots,” he said.Sarin further said the proposed densification through high-rise buildings would “choke our overstressed city, which is already on a ventilator with 1.3 million people in a space planned for half a million”.Story continues below this ad“Yes, one thing we will be able to say, albeit not so proudly, is that Chandigarh is like any other polluted, disorganised Indian city. We can make Chandigarh into Delhi — we are halfway there — but it is impossible to make Delhi into Chandigarh,” he added.Rajesh Rai, president of the Sector 43 Residents Welfare Association, said residents were surprised at the proposal for a “high-rise boom without an infrastructure backbone”.“When we read that Chandigarh is set for a major transformation through draft amendments to the Chandigarh Master Plan 2031 proposing high-rise, high-density development across large parts of the city, serious concerns about sustainability arose,” he said.Rai said the main concern was that the amendments sought to nearly double the buildable area in significant portions of the city even though Chandigarh’s roads, water supply, sewage and drainage systems were designed for a much smaller population and lower density.Story continues below this adResidents have also questioned the basis of the new provisions.“Alarmingly, the draft contains no traffic impact study, no detailed infrastructure augmentation plan, and no timelines or funding commitments — only a vague assurance that infrastructure shall be augmented as required. This gap between massive proposed development and the lack of supporting infrastructure plans is worrying. Unplanned densification risks permanently damaging the city’s liveability, traffic flow, green cover and basic services. The future of Chandigarh should be shaped by responsible, infrastructure-backed planning that preserves its unique character, not just high-rise ambitions,” Rai added.He said the administration must first present a comprehensive infrastructure roadmap before implementing such sweeping changes.Vinod Vashisht, Convener, City Forum of Residents Welfare Organisations, questioned whether the UT Administration had any mechanism to tackle the “mess”.Story continues below this ad“Instead of judiciously and proactively following the Master Plan over the previous 11 years, now, just five years before its target completion, the UT Administration wants to modify it reactively. The city has already overgrown and trebled from Le Corbusier’s original concept of a five-lakh population,” said Vashisht.He added, “While we are not averse to the administration’s push to allow vertical growth in Phase II and III sectors, it also has to incorporate a response and correction mechanism on how the UT is going to tackle the mess it has already created in the Phase I sectors (1 to 30) by not strictly following the prevailing Master Plan in the last decade. Allowing higher density before completing infrastructure assessments will choke the city’s resources unless properly addressed.”Vashisht said the administration should also address the issue of apartmentalisation and redensification raised in the Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of Residents Welfare Association versus UT of Chandigarh, particularly in Phase I sectors.“Prohibition on share-wise transfer of properties can be attributed to the failure of the Administration to develop sustainable parking infrastructure in the city, as any further densification is directly related to parking and traffic impact. It is suggested that the amended Master Plan incorporate neighbourhood and community parking infrastructure concepts in Phase I sectors in the immediate future,” he said.Hitesh Puri, Chairman, CRAWFED, also criticised the proposal.Story continues below this ad“The high-rise building proposal is not good for Chandigarh. The population of Chandigarh will increase, resulting in traffic congestion, affecting civic issues and burdening the health and education systems. It is against the Chandigarh model for which it came into existence after Independence. Even the Supreme Court of India stopped fragmentation in immovable properties to keep the burden on civic amenities under check and control the increase in Chandigarh’s population,” he said.RK Garg, president of Second Innings Association, termed the move “arbitrary”.“It seems to be a way towards selling parts and pieces of Manimajra land to developers only. To me, the entire exercise appears predetermined. Development is necessary, but it should be evidence-based,” he said.Naveen Manglani, vice-president of Chamber of Chandigarh Industries, supported the proposal for stilt-plus-five floors in Manimajra, but with conditions.Story continues below this ad“We support stilt-plus-five floors for Manimajra residential plots. It aids land use and parking, but two things are essential before notification — infrastructure first and no heavy charges,” he said.“Roads, water supply, sewerage and power infrastructure in Manimajra should be upgraded before increasing density. Extra floors must be free or nominally priced for owners to ensure affordability. Fire and structural norms should be enforced through a single-window system, and RWAs should be consulted before final rules are framed,” he added.However, representatives of housing societies welcomed the move.RS Thapar, co-convener of the Voice of Housing Societies Association, said, “We welcome the proposed draft amendments to the Chandigarh Master Plan-2031 allowing high-rise buildings. We would also request permission for high-rise development in existing co-operative house building societies, many of which are over 25 years old and facing ageing infrastructure, structural concerns and outdated low-density planning. This would enable modernisation, better utilisation of land, improved amenities and increased housing stock without requiring entirely new land parcels.”He added that incentives like additional FAR, transfer of development rights and relaxation in setbacks should also be considered.Story continues below this ad“Infrastructure upgradation funded partly through betterment charges on developers may also be considered to avoid strain on existing services,” Thapar said.