Master Planning: Myth and Reality
Urban land is undoubtedly the best asset class, despite all the legal, financial and taxation complexities involved. There is perhaps no other investment avenue that can compare with real estate in generating high profits. Urban land is therefore most sought after, and nobody would like to part with it if they do not get the best price. This is also the reason why more urban residents are getting increasingly concerned about the master plan of their city.
Master planning is essentially an exercise involving land allocation to various uses, amongst many other things. Public purpose on the one hand and private ownership on the other, public policy and individual interests, redistribution and accumulation — these are the conflicts one needs to grapple with, while dealing with master planning for a city.
The planner and the property owner are often at loggerheads. While the planner looks at the city as a whole, the individual looks at his own property alone. All problems originate from this diametrically opposed view.
MYTH 1: ARBITRARINESS
There is a popular misconception that master plans are done in an ad hoc manner. This is far from true.
Master plan preparation involves collection and analysis of a wide variety of technical data: traffic situation, land suitability, soil conditions, vegetation, water and drainage, power etc. These throw up issues and problems that need to be solved.
Then, based on the proposed vision, and after factoring in planning imperatives, a series of alternatives are prepared and an appropriate path chosen.
In addition, planning is a
Be the first to comment.
