Competition Results, Urban Design Challenge 2018: Design Ideas for City Core Redevelopment Models - Sarojini Nagar GPRA Colony

IUDI DNCR is happy to an­nounce the con­clu­sion of the com­pe­ti­tion. The jury met at School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi on 28th September 2018 and de­cided to award two mer­i­to­ri­ous cer­tifi­cates to Entry 791675 by Vikram Kohli, Sonal Tiwari and Richa Raje and Entry 885352 by Manasa Garikaparthy, Aditi Prakash, Himanshu Gupta and Chaitanya Varma.

Entry 791675: Vikram Kohli, Sonal Tiwari and Richa Raje

Entry 791675: Vikram Kohli, Sonal Tiwari and Richa Raje

From the Jury Statement: for the bold man­ner in which it at­tempts to re­solve the is­sues of traf­fic and cars, by cre­at­ing a dom­i­nantly pedes­trian en­vi­ron­ment and gives pri­macy to peo­ple on vi­brant streets.

Launch Project

Download pro­ject in PDF Format (2.3MB)

Entry 885352: Manasa Garikaparthy, Aditi Prakash, Himanshu Gupta and Chaitanya Varma

Entry 885352: Manasa Garikaparthy, Aditi Prakash, Himanshu Gupta and Chaitanya Varma

From the Jury Statement: the jury lauded its strong di­a­gram that cre­ates a clear civic spine and en­joins all the pub­lic spaces around it. This pro­ject rec­og­nizes strongly the pub­lic trans­port in­fra­struc­ture and al­lows the de­vel­op­ment to hinge around it.

Launch Project

Download pro­ject in PDF Format (74MB)

Submitted Entries

  • Entry 157339: Rohit Raj Mehndiratta, Vandini Mehta, Kanika Agarwal, Anurag Pal, and Chaitanya Patel (PDF 58MB)

  • Entry 571238: Soumyajit Kar, Ronit Biswas, Sneha Paul, and Saheli Ghosh (PDF 2.4MB)

  • Entry 634899: Himani Kanojia and Ritam Chakravarty (PDF 1.7MB)

  • Entry 719177: Meenakshi Dubey, Chitrangada Singh, Siddharth Verma, Fizaa Lamba, Dhriti Kapur, Saksham Pandit, Aparna Acharya, Ritika Jhunjhunwal, and Aditya Bhandari (PDF 80MB)

  • Entry 766492: Preetha Sajin with 4th Yr. B Arch Students, Sushant School of Art and Architecture (PDF 79MB)

  • Entry 794756: Abhishek Aggarwal, Anjali, Nidhi Singhal, Simran Kaur, and Vinika (PDF 2.0MB)

  • Entry 831545: Aarushi Gupta (PDF 2.4MB)

  • Entry 931766: Nimisha Gupta (PDF 50MB)

  • Entry 953646: Akhila Pentrala, Nandini Mohan, Rhea Sethi, and Nidhi Wupadrasta (PDF 26MB)

The Jury’s Statement

Developments such as these on pub­lic lands must hinge on the premise that they serve the larger pub­lic good and be­come mean­ing­ful con­tri­bu­tions to the fab­ric of the city. The jury be­lieved strongly that schemes that up­held and ex­plored this premise must be cel­e­brated and en­cour­aged.

The site un­der ques­tion poses the com­plex caul­dron that com­prises our ur­ban­ity. Issues of trans­porta­tion in the way de­vel­op­ments con­nect with the city, the abil­ity to re­duce our de­pen­dence on cars and the ways to en­cour­age pedes­trian en­vi­ron­ments are in the fore­front of all dis­cus­sions. Equally im­por­tant are is­sues of bio di­ver­sity and land­scapes of such lands, this in par­tic­u­lar has a his­toric in­ven­tory of thou­sands of trees and linked to this the fau­nal life that ex­ists. And fi­nally the place­less-ness that has be­come the sig­na­ture of much that is pre­sent day de­vel­op­ment needs the com­fort of a sense of iden­tity to an­chor with.

These is­sues were up­per­most in the minds of the ju­rors in their long and de­tailed dis­cus­sions.

Ideas of trans­for­ma­tion in cities need to be dis­cussed, since much of Indian ur­ban­ity is in grips with con­tin­ual change; ques­tions then of how does one in­ter­vene in such lands are moot.

The jury de­lib­er­ated on all the 11 en­tries that were re­ceived and felt that the en­tries, while they did not show great imag­i­na­tion that is pos­si­ble in such en­deav­ors, were con­sci­en­tious, con­cerned and sen­si­tive.

Of all the en­tries the jury would like to rec­og­nize the Entry 791675, for the bold man­ner in which it at­tempts to re­solve the is­sues of traf­fic and cars, by cre­at­ing a dom­i­nantly pedes­trian en­vi­ron­ment and fur­ther­more gives pri­macy to peo­ple on vi­brant streets. The pro­ject achieves this by a strate­gic lo­ca­tion of car park­ing in ways in which it will, over time im­pact how peo­ple move in a city. This pro­ject also in­tro­duces a mul­ti­tude of lin­ear and flex­i­ble blocks, which as a ty­pol­ogy are ag­ile and can be used in a range of man­ners that will be suit­able to dif­fer­ent con­di­tions pre­sented on the site. It fur­ther gets recog­ni­tion in the man­ner in which it re-imag­ines the grid, and brings in the idea of na­ture in a strong and con­vinc­ing man­ner. The en­try also shows early con­cerns of in­tro­duc­ing green in­fra­struc­ture and demon­strates ways in which tree preser­va­tion will be pos­si­ble. The con­tri­bu­tion of a large wet­land park is a pos­i­tive ad­di­tion to the grain of the city.

The other en­try that the jury found merit in was 885352. In this en­try the jury lauded its strong di­a­gram that cre­ates a clear civic spine and en­joins all the pub­lic spaces around it. This pro­ject rec­og­nizes strongly the pub­lic trans­port in­fra­struc­ture and al­lows the de­vel­op­ment to hinge around it. The other valu­able man­ner in which this pro­ject is per­ti­nent is the way in which it imag­ines the in­di­vid­ual block and its vari­a­tions that al­low the trees to be pre­served. But the jury was par­tic­u­larly happy to note the ges­tures made to­wards ideas of sus­tain­abil­ity or means of con­struc­tion tech­nol­ogy sug­gested.

There were other as­pects that were wor­thy of ac­knowl­edge­ment in some of the other en­tries. One en­try ex­am­ines a use­ful strat­egy in which vari­a­tion and the evo­lu­tion of block types is imag­ined. This strat­egy shows in­tel­li­gent flex­i­bil­ity and is a good strat­egy when con­fronted with a site that will throw up dif­fer­ent chal­lenges be­cause of the dis­tri­b­u­tion of trees.

Yet an­other other en­try was rec­og­nized for its broad ur­ban de­sign clar­ity and struc­ture, but the jury wished it had taken fur­ther the idea of den­sity, grain res­o­lu­tion and pub­lic trans­port.

The jury would also like to com­mend the IUDI DNCR Center for or­ga­niz­ing such an ef­fort and ful­fill­ing a sig­nif­i­cant la­cuna in the pro­fes­sional arena; that of fos­ter­ing mean­ing­ful dis­cus­sions on mat­ters of ur­ban­ity, and al­low­ing the space to imag­ine our cities bet­ter.

Jury Members: Aniket Bhagwat, Geetam Tiwari, Rajender Singh, Rajesh Rishi, Vinod Gupta
New Delhi, 28th Septemer 2018

Contact IUDI

You can find more in­for­ma­tion about IUDI at our web­site at udesin­dia.org and fol­low the Delhi-NCR Chapter of IUDI through its Facebook Page or view pro­ceed­ings of the mem­bers-only com­mu­nity at IamIUDI