In late 1950s and the beginning of 1960s, India was going through a process of establishing a new future for

a nation based on the Nehruvian ideologies of establishing urban centers as engines of growth as well as an image of a new modern emerging India. Apart from the city level exercises like Chandigarh, there was also a major drive to plan different parts of existing cities too. In Delhi, areas like R K Puram, Kidwai Nagar, INA etc. were planned to house large population. These exercises were based on the modern planning principles and hence huge instantaneous developments unlike the piecemeal growth of the traditional cities took place. Such a development led to many urban voids2 in the planned areas, there were areas that became un/under-utilized, inviting squatters and/or local dump yards and some became the backyards of the development. Motor vehicle being the key determinant for the plan has also led to certain urban voids, which are in general not perceived as backyards; sides of the wide roads or the parking lots in front of the building, or the setback land which lies behind the high walls. There are different layers to the formation of the urban voids and hence to its selfadaptable nature to adjust itself according to the surroundings. Now after more than 50 years of this development, the buildings have outlived its use and are up for redevelopment with new land pressures from the growth of the city. At this point it is very essential to understand the anatomy of urban voids, so that the redevelopment could have a different vision, as Einstein said We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them Indian urbanism has always revolved around shared spaces, be it the shared chaupal in the villages, which become the main activity hub, almost functionally equivalent to the Greek agora; or the maidaans of a city which is shared by different users for diverse functions spread over time, reflecting almost the entire city; or the ghats along the rivers which becomes a play ground, a temple, a market place, a resting garden and many more all at the same time. A shared space is converse of what an urban void is. Void ~ being without; when used as urban void refers to being without permeability (both social and physical) and being without a public realm. A void is a physical entity that is perceived as a no-mans land contrary to the notion of the shared space which is everyones land. The definition of both
2

The voids of the city are spaces which disrupt the urban tissue, leaving it incomplete and throw into question the use of those spaces. Sometimes called urban ruins, they are at the limit between private and public space, without belonging either to the one or to the other. (6)

urban voids and shared spaces are scale dependent, of what is a shared space at one scale may become an urban void at another scale; e.g. a slum is a shared space with great internal permeability and public realm, but at an area level the same slum becomes an urban void because it hinders permeability and the public realm at an area level, and act as a ghetto. Urban void and shared space may seem like a dichotomous terms, but they overlap, a void can have a shared space within itself and vice-versa because of the scale function, as Bernardo Secchi in his book For a town-planning of open spaces (1993) bring up, in the sprawled settlement pattern typical to the postwar era, in which the cities and the territories have become immense collection of objects tactically placed next to one another, mute. The missing links of inept definition in these areas are the reflection of a decomposed contemporary society in which the space in-between things, between objects and subjects, between my house and my neighbors, between their office and mine, is traversed by many strangers, and is not a meeting place, it has become empty because it plays no recognizable role. It is high time that we should now explore different voids at different scales and suggests urban design solutions to translate them to shared spaces, by which the redevelopment could be informed. urban voids present new opportunities for developing ambiguous and dynamic relationships. This blurring of public and private realms, of cultural and commercial zones, overturns the modern urban project with its desire to create distinct mono functional territories, but to no great purpose. Such fragmentary productions rest on a peculiar echo of the traditional strategy of urban beautification where to be at the centre might now mean to be at the edge. In contrast to this council of despair, it is therefore necessary to refine how a city might be made so its citizens are able to comprehend and be accommodated by the environment in which they are expected to live. (2) Sharing the urban voids will lead to urban systems that will define the future development.

2.1 Creation of Urban Void