1

Sabarmati Riverfront Development, Ahmedabad, India

Samvida Rai, r0688220, RLICC

KU Leuven
 2

Sabarmati Riverfront Development, Ahmedabad, India

Project Definition Phase

Need of the project – Situation before

The river Sabarmati has been a very important part of Ahmedabad since 1411, the time

when the city was founded along the river banks. It flows north-south through the city dividing it

into two halves. As the river is perennial, it provided space for farming during the dry seasons

which was about 9 months of the year and a backdrop to cultural and recreational activities all

throughout the year along with being a source of water. There were a lot of informal economic

activities like laundering and dyeing textiles, weekly flea markets which gradually led to informal

squatter settlements on both sides of the river. The river was used intensively which slowly started

having ill effects on it with untreated sewage flowing in through storm water outfalls, dumping of

industrial waste which would have led to a major health and environmental hazard. The banks

were prone to floods and the development along the river was drab with no access to it. From the

1970s the bridges were the only spots in the city from where the river could be experienced. All

these developments and activities led the city to turn its back towards the Sabarmati.

Figure 1 The informal settlements and the Figure 2 The washing and cleaning activities in
river's old condition (“Sabarmati Riverfront”, the river before the project (“Sabarmati
2014). Riverfront”, 2014).
 3

Figure 3 Informal settlements along the banks with their sewage flowing directly into the river (“Sabarmati
Riverfront”, 2014).

The initial thought behind developing the riverfront goes back to the 1960s when Bernard

Kohn, a French architect who was residing in Ahmedabad proposed in collaboration with a local

architect and engineer the development of a portion of the Sabarmati with a reclamation of 30

hectares of land. A group of local professionals came together in 1976 to propose an incremental

approach to create a public riverfront (“Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

Figure 4 The Development Plan proposed in 1976 by Riverfront Development Group (“Sabarmati
Riverfront”, 2014).
 4

Project Scope – Mindset in which the project was developed and became a reality

The potential of the development of the riverfront was recognized and studied long along

which would improve the quality of life for all sections of the society, creating a singular identity

of the city by bringing people closer to the river and bringing focus to the city centre by developing

necessary infrastructure. The whole project is heavily influenced by the way the riverbanks have

been treated in the western cities, especially London, New York, Paris and cities alike (“Sabarmati

Riverfront”, 2014).

The scope of the project was to have a multidimensional environmental improvement,

social upliftment and urban rejuvenation. This was aimed to be achieved by making the riverfront

accessible to the public, stopping the sewage flow into the river, keeping the river clean and

pollution free, providing permanent housing for the riverbed slum dwellers, reducing risk of

erosion and flooding in flood prone neighbourhoods, creating riverfront parks, promenades and

ghats (steps leading to the water) along the river, stitching together East and West Ahmedabad and

generating sources to pay for all the developments (“Ahmedabad”, 2015).

Project Deliverables

Master Plan

Figure 5 The state's water system ("Sabarmati Figure 6 Water system for Sabarmati
Riverfront", 2014). ("Sabarmati Riverfront", 2014).
 5

The full potential of the river was utilised by creating a public edge on both the sides of the

city. For land reclamation and flood control, the river was channelled to a constant width of 263m

after studying the physical features of the river and river hydraulics. Around 200 hectares of land

was reclaimed which was originally proposed to be 162 hectares spread in the length of 11.25kms

to create public riverfront on both the sides. As the river is perennial, the water in the river was

diverted from the Narmada Canal which flows a little North of the city.

Figure 7 The Proposed Land Use Plan ("Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

Figure 8 The proposed reclaimed land ("Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

 6

Figure 9 The proposed sewage treatment system ("Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

Figure 10 The proposed recreational spaces ("Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

This reclaimed land was proposed to be used for development sites for commercial

development i.e. exhibition centre, events ground, laundry campus, riverfront market; recreation

sites i.e. parks and plazas, upper and lower promenade, sports facilities, an urban forest; having a

street network to enhance the north-south linkages which strengthen the existing transportation

network of the city and development/ improving the existing streets leading to the river to have

better access (“Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

 7

Stakeholders and Actors

Figure 11 Stakeholders and Project Cycle (Author).

The main stakeholders and actors of the project at its inception were:

1. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) – The initiator of the project on the vision

of the then Chief Minister. The riverbed land which was owned by the state government

was transferred to the AMC. Due to uncontrollable circumstances, AMC had to also loan

funds for the project’s execution.

2. Government of Gujarat (State Government) –

i) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) - The city’s urban

development authority was involved to make amendments in the development and

building regulations based on the proposal’s recommendations.

 8

ii) Revenue Department – This department controlled the riverbed land and which had

to be transferred to the AMC to carry forward the reclamation. The process however

took more than 4 years because of some issues with the valuation.

iii) Irrigation Department – The technical studies regarding river hydraulics were

approved by this department.

3. Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation Limited (SRFDCL) –

Figure 12 Organizational structure of SRFDCL ("Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a development company conceived and owned by the

AMC to plan and implement the project. This was done to speed up the decision-making

process as the sole authority was given to SRFDCL after the approval of the concept plan

by the state government. The ownership of the reclaimed and riverbed land was never

transferred from AMC to SRFDCL to avoid making it an asset rich company. SRFDCL

was originally supposed to pledge the reclaimed land to borrow funds for carrying the
 9

execution. The company would be dissolved after completion of the project, transferring

ownership and maintenance responsibilities to the AMC.

4. Gujarat Industrial Development Board (GIDB) – A part of the state government, it

played an important in the initial stages of project development and planning by providing

seed funding to SRFDCL to carry on technical studies for the proposal and the feasibility

report.

5. Environment Planning Collaborative (EPC) - A committee of urban planners and

architects formed to make the project proposal. It was appointed as the development

manager for the early stages of project planning and implementation in 1999. It later had

to deal with several issues related to the relocation and rehabilitation of the project affected

households and markets to come up with new solutions to satisfy everyone.

6. Centre of Environment Planning and Technology (CEPT) – One of the premier

institutes of architecture and planning in India, situated in Ahmedabad was involved to

conduct studies and researches which affected the design decisions of the proposal.

7. Consultants to the project – The development management services were outsourced to

avoid the SRFDCL to partner with public or private sector staff. Other consultants were

responsible for physical survey of the river and banks, river hydraulic studies, water supply,

sewerage and storm water drainage proposals, structure design of retaining walls,

development of land use planning strategy, development of slum resettlement and

rehabilitation strategy, water retention and ground water issues, coordination of SRFD

proposal with National River Conservation Plan, development of preliminary

implementation and financing strategy and for surveying and estimating land values.
 10

8. Citizens to be rehabilitated and resettled – Around 14,000 families were evicted from

the river banks and shifted to different sites at the edge of the city. As the relocation and

rehabilitation plan wasn’t thought of in detail in the initial stages, it caused problems later.

The families affected by the project were not informed of the riverfront proceedings and

the matter had to be taken to court to get justice.

9. Sellers at the weekly flea market – The people associated with the 600-year-old weekly

market had a plight similar to the people residing on the river banks as their relocation was

not considered as well. A market with such a significant history and which affected

thousands of sellers and around 2,00,000 consumers every Sunday was not given due

importance to be an integral part of the redevelopment project.

10. Citizens of Ahmedabad – The residents of the city, the primary users for whom the project

was proposed.

Other stakeholders and actors which got involved in the later stages:

1. HUDCO - A national level infrastructure funding agency was involved in the execution

stage for funding the project.

2. Sabarmati Citizens Rights Forum (SCRF) – Founded by NGOs for helping the project

affected families get sufficient time to evict and properly relocated.

3. Academics and researchers – As the issues emerged, several academicians and researches

from CEPT and Indian Institute of Management (IIM) conducted several workshops and

researches looking at the social aspects of the project focusing on the struggles of the

evicted, the lack of transparency around the whole project and the gap between the claims

and the results (“Ahmedabad”, 2015; Mathur, 2012).

 11

Project Planning Phase

The project was planned to be executed in the following order:

1. Feasibility report: A feasibility report was made in 1998 by the Environmental Planning

Collaborative (EPC) to clearly explain and put forward the proposal with the basic

estimates, implementation strategy, revenue potential and with the works to be done for a

better project planning phase.

2. Study of the physical features of the river

3. River hydraulics

4. Land reclamation and embankments with water retention, ground water discharge

5. Land ownership

6. Land use and road network

7. Infrastructure services

8. Resettlement and Rehabilitation (EPC, 1998)

Budgeting and Finance

The project was originally proposed as being self-financed as parts of the reclaimed

riverfront land were to be auctioned to cover the cost of development. SRFDCL received an initial

amount of 9 crore as seed capital from the GIDB. The estimated cost of the project was USD 60

million and the feasibility study estimated that selling 20 percent of the reclaimed land would

generate USD 76 million (“Ahmedabad”, 2015).

 12

Project Execution Phase

Initiation

With the formation of SRFDCL in 1997, feasibility report and scoping done in 1998, the

SRFDCL started the process of riverbed land transfer from the Irrigation department which was

the first and the most important step for starting the land reclamation. 1999-2003 were the years

when the initial processes such as land transfer, soil testing, structure design and testing,

infrastructure design, finance feasibility study and selection of construction technologies for

retaining wall and promenade were accomplished. (“Ahmedabad”, 2015).

Relocation and Rehabilitation

The project was launched in 2003 and has been contentious since then. In the beginning

the project was decided to be moved northward by the Commissioner of Ahmedabad for unknown

reasons. It did not materialize as the official got transferred and it was saved as the project’s

purpose would have been lost if the it would have been moved. As the project was inaugurated, it

caused a stir amongst the affected households in the informal settlements along the banks as no

information was provided to them other than the assurance that the resettlement would be close to

their present location. The two main components of the project, that were the resettlement and

rehabilitation of the informal settlers and the reestablishment of the markets on the riverfront were

not completely thought of and they caused the most amount of delay in the project execution

(“Ahmedabad”, 2015).
 13

Figure 13 Project affected slums (EPC, 1998).

This led to the formation of a coalition called the SCRF which was facilitated by rights-

based NGOs. A public interest litigation (PIL) was lodged by the forum in the High Court to ensure

that the SRFDCL provided the settlers a rehabilitation plan and the whole process of identification

and coverage of families was transparent. A process of interim rehabilitation was started by the

SRFDCL while the PIL was lodged in order to speed up the project execution. Originally, the

settlers were to be shifted within 2-3kms of their previous location but by the time the whole

process started and the relocation and rehabilitation plan (R&R) plan was finalized, the national

government initiated a scheme for providing housing for the people below the poverty line. This

made AMC propose the relocation to be done on the municipal owned land far from the riverfront.

3000-4000 families were shifted from the riverfront in 2004-05 to a marshy land at the edge of the

city. This decision affected the lives of the families tremendously as their livelihoods, which were

very much connected to the river or close by were lost because of increased travel costs, the
 14

children had to travel a long way to school because of which a lot of them dropped out. “They

were shifted to chalk-drawn open plots of 10 by 15 feet, with little and infrequent access to drinking

water and minimal sanitation facilities, mainly provided by foreign donors for a child poverty

action programme”. The promised education, health and sanitation facilities along with the

compensation and loans for new housing were not delivered till seven years of eviction. The other

rehabilitations had a similar scenario with several thousands of them being shifted to “a brownfield

site, snake infested wasteland at the fringe of the city, adjacent to a solid waste treatment plant,

under electricity transmission towers and high-tension cables, with no shelter or toilet facilities”

(Mathur, 2012).

The rehabilitation took place up to 2011, when around 2000 houses were demolished in the

month of May, the hottest month in Ahmedabad with the people being allotted no housing or

interim rehabilitation and had to live in the scorching sun next to the demolished houses (Mathur,

2012).

Pilot Projects

While the issue of land acquisition, R&R was being addressed, the SRFDCL on the other

hand started with the pilot project in 2004 to finalize the technology for constructing the retaining

walls. Contractors were selected from several rounds of proposals after the completion of the pilot

process and the construction began in 2007 (“Ahmedabad”, 2015).

 15

Figure 14 Retaining wall and reclamation ("Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

Figure 15 Initial stages of execution ("Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

Flooding and Delays

The project had been stalled in 2006 because of the heavy floods that had swamped the

city. This led to the re-evaluation of the project design to check the river’s carrying capacity and

whether the execution of the project would damage the river’s ecology. It was suggested to mark
 16

the flood levels where the main canal crosses the river and at the barrage upstream which implied

a problem. Hundreds of hutments were washed off and because of inaccurate data and conflicting

assessments, the project’s river hydraulics and flood design were under perusal. A loophole was

found in the design as the pollution aspect wasn’t considered and an impractical design with a

hunch that developing the 11km stretch would push the pollution downstream, was put forward

for execution. This created a problem till the whole sewage treatment infrastructure was in place

at all locations in 2011 (Seth, 2007).

New Funding Agencies

As the implementation was delayed due to various factors, it hampered the auction of the

reclaimed land. New financing measures had to be necessitated to tackle the situation. The project

was then funded completely by loans from HUDCO and AMC. AMC itself financed the pilot

projects. For obtaining loans from HUDCO, existing serviced land under AMC was pledged as

collateral. USD 150 million has been loaned from HUDCO and AMC has granted USD 58 million.

The remaining USD 40 million were obtained by share capital sold by the SRFDCL which are

under the AMC (“Ahmedabad”, 2015).

The Riverfront Market

There was a lack of a clear legally mandated policy to deal with the number of self-

organized markets on the riverfront. The relocation of the six-hundred-year-old Sunday market

with a 1200-member association was not considered to be catered. Neither could the market be

abolished nor it could be moved too far away from the original location as it was centrally located,

was in close proximity to the major city, regional and national transport links.
 17

Figure 16 The new riverfront market ("Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

The market was visited by more than 2,00,000 customers every Sunday from different economic

strata from within the city, rural areas in the state and other cities in the adjoining states. The

association was so well organized that the market had not closed for even a single Sunday, not

even during disasters and riots. The relocation or rehabilitation of the market was not considered

important to be included in the redevelopment project as the city authorities and the urban planners

of the EPC thought that “the market was filthy, disorganised and disorderly, lacked basic amenities

and was generally unfit for the experience of the upper income groups” (Mathur, 2012). As the

market had been served a formal eviction notice in 2010, the association filed a PIL in the high

court to prevent the eviction and as a response to the remarks of the planning authorities, inducted

their own process of designing an upgradation plan of the market. The space had to look

presentable to fit in the new image of the city for which a design process with participatory

designers and faculty members was held at NID, India’s premier design institute in Ahmedabad.

This was then presented to the SRFDCL and the EPC and was ignored by them. A stay order was

granted by the High Court to curb any eviction from the market site but the development authority

overlooked it. Hundreds of police personnel were deployed, the operation of the market was

blocked for eviction. The SRFDCL started negotiating with the market association by offering
 18

them a small space at a distance on the riverbank near the parking. As it was not a fair deal, the

matter went to the court again but as the association was not as powerful as the city authorities,

they preferred to not fight back or stretch the matter. It was later constructed on a site adjacent to

the original and has been operational since 2014 (Mathur, 2012; Trivedi et al, 2016).

Closing out the Project

The basic infrastructure including the reclamation and sewage interceptor lines has long

been done and functional with developments on the reclaimed land beginning to shape up. With

several parts like the lower and upper promenade, two public parks, laundry area, the riverfront

market, exhibition ground, public plazas and some boating spots open and functional, there is still

a lot left.

Figure 17 The Riverfront promenade (“Sabarmati Riverfront”, 2014).

Visions of different stakeholders

The project has been controversial since its commencement and more so after the execution

started on site. One of the root causes of this is the lack of the global vision amongst the

stakeholders at different levels. The then Chief Minister of the state, who is now the Prime Minister
 19

of the country wanted to enhance the city’s potential for inviting business and investment. The

chief planner and designer’s motivation was to “return the river to public” which he tried to do by

applying out of context western concepts. He believed the river was being disrespected and the

lack of water in it was the evidence of it and the it’s use by the poor residents wasn’t giving the

upper income groups to access the river. The proposition of development was put forward and

carried on by putting the least powerful people in the societal chain at stake. Even the authorities

responsible for the execution of the works on site were not on the page with the other actors as

they just wanted to execute the project “without much confusion”. Land ownership was also a

main issue. With different public and private owners, land ownership with opposition from

different users caused most of the delay and conflict. The fact that this issue was not envisaged by

the professionals dealing in such matters for a living shows the lack of informed vision in the

project management system.

A lack in the vision of the completion of the project also exists amongst the authorities and

actors. The chief executive of the AMC and SRFDCL considers the project to be 85% complete

while the chief planner of the EPC considers the project to be an unceasing process of city

development (Mathur, 2012).

Criticism received for the project by Academics and Researchers

The project was criticized for the blatant ignorance to the environmental and social issues

attached to the river, focusing only on the economic aspect of it. Even though the project talked

about these issues during the proposal and planning phase, they were not addressed properly in

material sense. The river is now like an 11km long lake with no function other than being an

element of beauty and admiration. The design of the riverfront which on one hand brings the people
 20

closer to the water, but the sense of being closer to a natural element is lost as the design is very

formal (Rao, 2012; Mathur, 2012).

The issue of least consideration for the project were the affected households and the related

people who based their livelihood on the river, either because of the location or by simply using

the river has been discussed above. Another point of discussion amongst different groups was that

the redevelopment project was proposed and was being executed for the river to be made accessible

to the upper income groups of Ahmedabad. This received a lot of flak and resulted in unwanted

delays and increased project costs (Mathur, 2012).

Conclusion

The project at its initiation was envisioned as a feature that would transform Ahmedabad’s

identity and received a lot of acclaim but it has clearly missed the most important component,

which was the proper relocation and rehabilitation of the project affected households even though

a separate consultant was hired for the same.

If seen critically, there have been problems in most of the main components of the project,

which includes finance, design, land acquisition and relocation of the affected.

Personally, an issue that is bothersome is the fact that the project has no completion date.

It is understandable that such a gigantic project covering so many aspects is complex to deal with

and is obvious that the project gets functional in phases, but not having an end date is a bit of a

stretch. The SRFDCL was originally a SPV which was supposed to be dissolved after the

completion of the project but what at what stage will it be complete?

 21

References

Ahmedabad. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2018, from https://urban-

regeneration.worldbank.org/Ahmedabad

Baum, W. C. (1988). The Project Cycle (3rd ed.). Washington D.C., USA: The World Bank.

Campbell, G. M. (2011). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Project Management. New York, USA: Alpha

Books.

EPC. (1998). Proposal for Sabarmati Riverfront Development Ahmedabad; Feasibility Report.

Gardiner, P. D. (2005). Project Management: A Strategic Planning Approach. New York, USA: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Mathur, N. (2012). On the Sabarmati Riverfront Urban Planning as Totalitarian Governance in

Ahmedabad. Economic and Political Weekly, 47, 64-75.

Rao, M. S. (2012). Sabarmati Riverfront Development, an Alternate Perspective. Landscape, 36, 70-73.

Sabarmati Riverfront Development. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2018, from

http://sabarmatiriverfront.com/

Seth, B. L. (2007, April 15). Concerns over Sabarmati Riverfront Development Project. Retrieved

January 4, 2018, from http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/concerns-over-sabarmati-riverfront-

development-project-5786

Trivedi, T., Parwani, A., Bhatia, J., Mittal, M., Kapoor, H., Makhija, I., . . . Udhani, D. (2016). A Study

on Socio-Economic Impact of Sabarmati Riverfront on Life of Displaced Communities. Imperial

Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR), 2(7), 1578-1602.