See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335522296

The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar experience

Article  in  URBAN DESIGN International · March 2020

DOI: 10.1057/s41289-019-00099-1

CITATIONS READS

3 10,799

1 author:

Sweta Byahut
Auburn University
24 PUBLICATIONS   68 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Creating Higher Density Property Development Opportunities in Fringe Areas of Surat – A Case of Surat Outer Ring-Road using Land Readjustment and Density Bonuses
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sweta Byahut on 18 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

URBAN DESIGN International
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-019-00099-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar

experience
Sweta Byahut1

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Abstract
The New Town of Gandhinagar was built in the 1960s as the capital of Gujarat state in western India with a spacious, modern
character. Over the next four decades, it developed as an administrative center, but due to development restrictions and rigid
periphery control, it was not able to effectively respond to regional growth pressures. The objective of Gandhinagar’s Devel-
opment Plan for 2011 was to transform it from an administrative center into a thriving and economically vibrant community
able to accommodate the demands of a rapidly urbanizing economy. This plan marked a departure from the state-led master
planning and development based on eminent domain, and adopted a land readjustment mechanism for urban expansion.
It applied a place-based approach to preserve the formal character of the capital city, while at the same time transform the
quality of its built environment. This paper provides insights into the unique challenges of re-planning a planned New Town,
and particularly highlights the opportunities that urban design scenarios provide to planners to meet a variety of planning
objectives. A decade later, implementation success has been limited to urban expansion areas with the realization that the
legacy of state-led development is not easily overcome without accompanying institutional changes.

Keywords  Gandhinagar · New Towns · Neighborhood unit · Place-based building regulations · Urban design scenarios

Introduction and describes the plan to transform its character from an

Gandhinagar was one of the three capital cities built in post-
independent India. Its growth has been slow, and four dec-
ades since it started building in the 1960s, it emerged as
an administrative center and not a multi-dimensional city.
However, the surrounding region experienced intense pres-
sures due to its proximity to Ahmedabad, Gujarat’s largest
and India’s seventh-largest city, having a population of over
6 million in 2011 (Census of India 2011). The Gandhinagar
Development Plan for the target year 2011 addressed a set of
unique challenges in re-planning a New Town, and marked
a departure from the traditional Master Plan.
This article presents a historical narrative of development
of Gandhinagar, and broad critiques of the form-based and
urban studies approach of a mid-twentieth century new town
in India and subsequent attempts at its re-invigoration. It
briefly outlines the growth constraints of Gandhinagar,
* Sweta Byahut
sweta.byahut@auburn.edu
1
Department of Political Science, Auburn University, 8052
Haley Center, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
administrative center to an economically and culturally
vibrant city. It provides critical insights on the challenges
and opportunities associated with planning a planned new
town, dismantling rigid state controls, formulating place-
based regulations, adopting land readjustment mechanism
to introduce private sector land development and for regulat-
ing growth in urban villages. It offers insights into the chal-
lenges of moving away from a state-led land development
regime to a market economy within a planning framework,
and highlights the opportunities that urban design scenarios
offer for formulating place-based building regulations. The
article explores the following research questions: what are
the challenges facing the future of post-colonial new towns
that were designed as stand-alone entities, without much
consideration for future growth? What are some of the land
development strategies for overcoming the lack of a market-
based mechanism in planning, symptomatic of the twentieth
century new town movement in the developing world? What
are some of the planning challenges in dealing with exist-
ing villages on the urban periphery when engulfed by urban
sprawl? This article also examines the on-ground reality of
the top-down planning in India that is dominated by multiple

Vol.:(0123456789)
 S. Byahut
agencies and jurisdictions, yet lack the mechanisms neces-
sary to effectively plan for the region and peri-urban growth.
Further, it argues that a place-based urban design approach
incorporating improved density and land use mix in the plan-
ning process can help introduce some of the missing “urban-
ism” to new towns such as Gandhinagar.
The methodology includes an extensive review of rel-
evant literature on the planning and building of new towns
and the application of the neighborhood unit in Indian cities.
A critical review of several planning documents for Gandhi-
nagar was undertaken, including several reports of the 2011
Gandhinagar Development Plan and Implementation Strat-
egy: Part 1: Studies and Analysis, Part 2: Proposals and Poli-
cies, and Part 3: General Development Control Regulations.
Supporting documents were reviewed, including various sur-
veys, studies, analyses, drawings, and urban design studies
produced, as well as notes of over 100 stakeholder and plan-
preparation meetings. Gandhinagar’s original 1966 Master
Plan and the recent Draft Development Plan for 2024 were
also examined. Expert meetings were held with government
planners, and field visits were undertaken within Gandhina-
gar and its peripheral region to observe plan implementation
and recent developments. This article also draws extensively
from the author’s insights obtained from professional asso-
ciation with the 2011 Gandhinagar Development plan.
New Towns in India
About 70 countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America
gained independence from European colonial powers after
WW-II. These newly independent countries built several
new towns such as Brazilia, Chandigarh, and Islamabad in
an effort to create a new post-colonial national identity. After
gaining independence in 1947, over the next two decades,
led by national policy, India built 118 new towns, including
three state capitals (Chandigarh, Gandhinagar, and Bhu-
baneshwar), numerous industrial townships/company towns
(e.g., Tatanagar, Durgapur, Rourkela, Bhillai, and Bokaro),
and satellite towns on the periphery of large congested cit-
ies (e.g., Salt Lake City in Kolkata) (Sinha and Singh 2011;
Sood 2015; Glover 2012). The most recent example is that
of Amaravati, the new capital for Andhra Pradesh state,
announced in 2014, currently under construction.
Designed by the renowned French Architect Le Cor-
busier in the architectural modernism ideology, Chandigarh
is widely considered a model of modern town planning
(Haynes and Rao 2013; Glover 2012; Kalia 1997; Perera
2004). Nehru, the first prime minister of India, wanted Chan-
digarh to be built in a modernist, secular, utopian vision
“unfettered by the traditions of the past” (Prakash 2016;
Shaw 2009; Kalia 2004, 2006a; Perera 2004). The three
state capitals were built on greenfield sites using the highest
space standards and planning norms, avoided urban regen-
eration, and bypassed the squalor and infrastructure deficit
of Indian cities (Bhattacharya and Sanyal 2011). However,
they struggled with the dichotomy between the traditional
and the modern, and sought to construct an ideal city static
in time but lacking in street life (Fitting 2002). Kalia (2004)
characterizes Corbusier’s Chandigarh as safe and boring, yet
inspiring to Indian architects and planners. It also served as
a model for building new towns for other developing coun-
tries, such as the Nigerian capital Abuja built in the 1980s
(Prakash 2016).
Planning of Gandhinagar was also inspired by Chandi-
garh. It was similarly laid out on a strong, symmetrical grid,
characterized by broad Town Roads, vast open spaces, and
divided into rectangular “sectors” or self-sufficient residen-
tial neighborhoods. The sector was the outcome of combin-
ing the neighborhood unit and the hierarchical classifica-
tion of urban streets concepts that gained popularity in the
mid-twentieth century (Mehaffy et al. 2010). The neighbor-
hood unit was introduced by Perry and Stein in the 1920s
in America as a basic city building block and a physical
tool for neighborhood design (Vidyarthi 2010a, b). It aimed
to increase convenience and opportunities for community
interaction by placing schools, parks, and community facili-
ties within walking distance, and convenience shopping in
central areas. It emphasized separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic by placing major thoroughfares on the
perimeter, internal curvilinear streets to reduce traffic, and
an inward looking core connected with a separate pedes-
trian circulation system (Banerjee and Baer 1984). In India,
the neighborhood unit was assimilated and indigenized by
planners in New Town Master Plans and expansion plans of
older cities as a secular alternative to traditional caste-based
neighborhoods and a society based on the collective (Vid-
yarthi 2010a, b, 2015). They recreated the village frame-
work by incorporating a central space for social interaction
in each sector with a school, community center, or temple,
but looked completely different (Glover 2012). While the
neighborhood unit influenced planning across the world, it
has been criticized for physical determinism and trying to
achieve social homogeneity through design (Lawhon 2009,
Banerjee and Baer 1984). New Town influences can also
be traced to the Garden City concept from early twentieth
century England, and the Radburn model in the US, with
parallel visions for a decentralized, self-contained, socially
integrated, low-density, modern town (Banerjee 2009; Perera
2004; Kalia 2004). A major critique of the British new town
legacy is their complete absence of urbanism. As many as 32
new towns were established in UK during 1946–1970 after
the WW-II, enabled by the New Towns Acts of 1946 and
1965. A House of Commons (2002) report concluded that
these new towns are plagued with aging infrastructure and
social and economic problems, exacerbated by low-density
The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar experience
development, vast open spaces, and segregation of hous-
ing from jobs and businesses. Gandhinagar’s early growth
is also reminiscent of the earlier British “new town blues,”
as experienced by residents of these new towns, including
mental health issues due to a sense of isolation, loneliness,
relocation and displacement from their communities, and
a lack of social ties in a new environment (Clapson 1998).
New towns were planned to accommodate a target
population, and unlike comprehensive plans, there was no
mechanism for periodic updating. Their Master Plans were
often architect-centric and revered, and therefore difficult to
update, making them static and inflexible in rapidly urban-
izing and fast-growing economies (Prakash 2016; Cha-
lana 2015; TCPO 2009; Perera 2004). Rigid state control,
restriction on land development in peripheral areas, and a
non-existent private property market created development
pressures that they are not equipped to handle. For instance,
Chandigarh was planned for half a million residents, but
experienced explosive growth and exceeded 1 million by
2011, leading to large-scale unplanned developments and
satellite towns (Chalana 2015; Fitting 2002). There is lit-
tle understanding of what planning measures—if any—new
towns such as Chandigarh, Gandhinagar, Bhubaneshwar and
Jamshedpur have adopted to cope with growth.
Building of Gandhinagar
The Gujarat state came into existence in 1960 after the bifur-
cation of the erstwhile Bombay State. Ahmedabad func-
tioned as a temporary capital, but because it was old and
congested, the new and modern capital of Gandhinagar was
built just 22 km north on the west bank of the River Sabar-
mati. While Chandigarh and Bhubaneshwar were designed
by the renowned foreign architects Le Corbusier and Otto
Königsberger, respectively, Gandhinagar’s planning was
indigenous, keeping with the swadeshi1 ideals of Mahatma
Gandhi, after whom the city was named (Kalia 1997, 2004).
The team was led by Mr. Mewada, the state planner who
had earlier worked with Corbusier in Chandigarh. Gandhi-
nagar was built by the Gandhinagar Capital Projects Divi-
sion (GCPD) of the state’s Public Works Department. Con-
struction started in 1964, and in 1971, the first phase was
completed with eight residential sectors, and administrative
functions moved to the Capitol Complex. GCPD’s role was
to develop public buildings, commercial areas, and housing
as well as manage the water supply, sewage, and drainage
facilities. The non-municipal Gandhinagar Notified Area
1
 Swadeshi movement was part of the Indian independence move-
ment that called for a boycott of British and foreign products to sup-
port Indian nationalism and locally made products.
Committee (GNAC) was constituted in 19962 for civic func-
tions including solid waste management, public health, and
fire services. Planning fell under the purview of the Chief
Architect and Town Planning office.
Gandhinagar is quite different from Indian cities with
its wide Town Roads and formal avenues laid out on a
dominant grid, a uniform architectural form, and vast green
spaces. The GNA spans 57.38 km2 and has a planned area of
42.88 km2. Town Roads divide Gandhinagar into 30 sectors,
most of which are 1000 m × 750 m in size and 75 ha in area.
Each residential sector was planned for approximately 7000
people, containing schools, shopping, health clinic, library,
playgrounds, parks, and other facilities. Internal streets are
looped and curvilinear, and residential streets are dead ends.
Gandhinagar’s Master Plan included separate work areas
including the Capitol Complex, government offices, light
industries, civic center, institutions, and commerce. A City
Center and a Zonal District Center for every 4–5 residential
sectors were planned to accommodate large civic and cul-
tural amenities and businesses. The Capitol Complex, the
City Center, and larger office and commercial areas have
taller buildings (up to 9 stories), but residential areas were
generally limited to 2 or 3 stories. In general, a medium
gross density of 100 persons per hectare (pph) was planned
in keeping with the spacious character of the city. With the
government as the largest employer, relatively higher den-
sities (between 100 and 150 pph) were planned near gov-
ernment offices and industries. Much higher densities (up
to 250 pph) were planned in government housing clusters.
Densities are generally lower (50–100 pph) in peripheral
sectors, and very low in elite residential areas.
Initially, Gandhinagar was planned to accommodate
150,000 residents, but in 1974, the target population for 2015
was increased to 350,000. However, given slow city growth,
the revised target population is unlikely to be achieved even
by 2031 (Census of India 2011). In 1991, the Gandhinagar
Notified Area (GNA, or Gandhinagar city) had a population
of 123,359, which increased in 2001 to 195,985, and in 2011
to 206,167 (Census of India 2011; GOI 2001). Gandhinagar
is one of the greenest capitals in the world, with vast areas
earmarked for central vista, ornamental gardens, regional
greens, and a new urban forest created by planting 4 mil-
lion trees (Chaudhry et al. 2011). It is well connected with
Ahmedabad and its international airport by three excellent
highways, and is quite dependent on Ahmedabad to serve
their higher-order industrial, commercial, and educational
needs. A significant number of people live in Ahmedabad
but work in Gandhinagar. Due to their strong connected-
ness and a short commute, a strong functional relationship
developed between them.
2
  Under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.
 S. Byahut
Fig. 1  Barren and dilapidated residential areas, vacant lands, and undeveloped open spaces in GNA. Source GUDA (2001a)
Fig. 2  Informal shops, street hawkers, and unauthorized retail in residential buildings. Source GUDA (2001a)
Lack of vibrant city life
While meticulously planned, with its concentrated focus on
delivering governmental administrative functions and hous-
ing for government employees, many residents and visitors
perceive Gandhinagar to be dull and uninteresting. With lim-
ited opportunities for retail, commercial, economic, cultural,
or entertainment development, the economy did not diver-
sify to attract businesses or people (Dikshit 1993; GUDA
2001a). Retail growth was particularly sluggish as only 20%
of planned commercial areas developed after nearly four
decades, and most of it away from populated areas (GUDA
2001a). The sectors were inward looking with the backs
of small homes facing main Town Roads, and many large
road-facing and corner lots remaining vacant. Located in
the center of sectors, shopping areas were not in areas with
high retail potential or footfalls, and had low visibility and
accessibility. With retail activity not permitted along Town
Roads, they were devoid of people, civic life, and activities.
This created an atmosphere of sterile dullness and monotony
during the day, and deserted and unsafe streets at nights.
Town Roads carrying high-speed traffic became barriers
to bike and pedestrian connectivity and isolated sectors/
neighborhoods. While Gandhinagar’s original Master Plan
included a separate bicycle and pedestrian system for each
neighborhood, these were never built. Separation of move-
ment and accessibility did not allow Town Roads to develop
as vibrant social spaces, nor as urban economic generators
(Mehaffy et al. 2010). It also led to unauthorized retail in
residential buildings.
Large areas marked for commercial, industrial, institution,
public, and undefined uses remained undeveloped, and vast
open spaces also remained underdeveloped, ill maintained,
and underused. In spite of massive tree plantation, residen-
tial areas within the sectors looked barren (Fig. 1). The Dis-
trict Center and the famous tourist destination Akshardham
attract many people, but lacked parking, sidewalks, or facili-
ties. In 1991, there were over 700 informal shops near large
institutional and government areas, along Town Roads and
intersections, and in residential areas, which created parking,
street encroachments, and traffic problems (Fig. 2).
In the 1990s, the state government began to promote Gan-
dhinagar as an important cultural, educational, and corpo-
rate destination, focusing on the area between Gandhinagar
and Ahmedabad west of the Sabarmati River. Recreational
facilities such as amusement parks, regional greens, and
The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar experience
multiplexes became major attractions for the Gandhinagar-
Ahmedabad region. Efforts were made to diversify the
economy by establishing an electronics industrial estate,
the Info-City complex, and several colleges and corporate
offices. Since the original Master Plan had conceptualized
Gandhinagar’s existence in isolation from Ahmedabad, these
new developments were inconsistent with the periphery con-
trol imposed when the city was built.
Land development and periphery control
Gandhinagar was developed by the state government via
bulk land acquisition from farmers at cheap prices using
eminent domain. All land development and disposal were
through state allotments and auctions. Initially, the reserve
price was kept low to motivate people to move to the New
Town, so did not fully recover land and infrastructure costs.
With controlled land disposal and lack of amenities, GNA
experienced slow growth and development. The housing
stock consisted largely of government quarters, with the
limited amount of private housing also primarily owned by
government employees. Various categories of housing were
built carefully according to employee ranks, and residential
lots (ranging from 50 to 1650 m2) were also allotted to them.
The Master Plan made strict lot-by-lot determination for res-
idential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or administra-
tive uses. Residential, commercial, or industrial lots were
available only through government auctions, which had not
taken place in a decade. Restricted development, a tightly
controlled land market, and regulated prices resulted in arti-
ficial land scarcity, unrealistically high property prices, and
overall stagnation. In 1997, over 7500 lots (about 930 ha)
were vacant that had capacity to accommodate additional
56,500 residents, and 15% land remained to be plotted, auc-
tioned, or allotted (GUDA 2001a).
Lack of private sector participation in Gandhinagar’s
development did not allow a private land market to develop
within the city. At the same time, the periphery surround-
ing the GNA came under intense development pressure,
which led to haphazard growth in villages nearby. Similar
to legislation in Chandigarh, the Gandhinagar New Capital
Periphery Control Act was enforced in 1960 to maintain
pristine rural surroundings within a 5-mile radius (Shah
and Bagchi 2016; Chalana 2015; Kalia 2004, 1985; GoG
1960; GUDA 2001a). This prevented conversion of agri-
cultural lands to urban use and froze land development for
decades. Village settlement or built-up areas (gamtals) had
not increased, and non-agriculture (N.A.)3 permissions
3
  In Gujarat, non-agriculture (N.A.) use permissions are granted by
the state’s land revenue department, which functions independently
from the urban development department. By 1999, N.A. permissions
for approximately 300 ha. land had been granted and another 125 ha.
were sparingly given. This also contributed to artificial land
scarcity, high prices, and resulted in considerable illegal
development in villages and near highways. Between 2001
and 2011, the GNA population increased by less than 7000
people, but GUDA population outside the GNA increased
by over 46,000 (Census of India 2011). In spite of the
periphery control, or perhaps due to it, the highly desirable
area between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar experienced an
intense demand for land from the private sector leading to
large-scale speculative investments in the 1990s.
GUDA development plan for 2011
Recognizing regional growth pressures and constrained
development conditions under Gandhinagar’s original
Master Plan, the state constituted the Gandhinagar Urban
Development Area in 1996 having a jurisdiction of 387 km2
including the GNA and surrounding 39 villages. The Gan-
dhinagar Urban Development Authority (GUDA) was estab-
lished to prepare a comprehensive, long-range, statutory
Development Plan,4 under the Gujarat Town Planning and
Urban Development Act (GTPUDA) of 1976 (GoG 1976).
The objective of this plan was to transform Gandhinagar
from an administrative capital to an economically and cul-
turally vibrant city, and promote regional growth particularly
in areas outside the GNA.
A Development Plan typically includes road network,
land use zoning, development control regulations, and other
planning elements. The planning process included studies
of existing land uses, economic activities, and demographic
analysis. Studies focused on vacant land redevelopment,
street façades, urban design and built form, and detailed area
studies of various sectors and fast-growing villages (GUDA
2001a). About 100 meetings were held with stakeholders
including various government agencies,5 39 village coun-
cils, and stakeholder groups. However, broader community
and citizen participation was lacking in Gandhinagar’s plan-
ning process. These focused on the needs and development
Footnote 3 (continued)
land was developed without permission. Altogether 550 ha. land was
developed in rural areas, of which 375 ha. was residential.
4
 Environmental Planning Collaborative (EPC) was appointed by
GUDA to prepare the Development Plan and Implementation Strat-
egy for the year 2011 AD. EPC is a not-for-profit, urban planning
firm based in Ahmedabad, India.
5
 Including the Collector’s Office, Gandhinagar Capital Projects
Division, Gandhinagar Notified Area Committee, Roads and Building
Department, Ahmedabad Municipal Commission, Ahmedabad Urban
Development Authority, Railways, Airport Authority; Gujarat Indus-
trial Development Corporation, Gujarat Infrastructure Development
Board, Directorate of Horticulture; and business groups such as brick
kiln manufacturers and real estate developers.
 S. Byahut
vision for Gandhinagar such as pattern of urbanization and
densities; the nature, direction, and extent of future growth;
built form characteristics; zoning and land uses; physical
and social infrastructure; transportation; open spaces and
environment; heritage and tourism; and development control
regulations. Urban design scenarios were generated to antici-
pate the character of the resultant built form for various areas
to formulate place-based regulations (GUDA 2001b, c). The
plan was published in the State Gazette and enforced in 2003
after undergoing two rounds of public review and modifi-
cations.6 Finally, implementation strategies and financing
mechanisms were outlined.
The plan introduced retail and mixed use development
along select Town Roads and densification by private sector
infill development on larger vacant lots. These areas were
carefully identified to maintain the stately and green char-
acter of the Capitol Complex and the formal avenues, while
at the same time encourage more optimal land utilization.
Service roads were proposed so that new activities and traf-
fic would not spillover onto Town Roads. Gandhinagar and
Ahmedabad are expected to merge into one mega-region
over time due to their close proximity and mutual inter-
dependencies, development demand, and future growth.
The plan responded to the development pressures towards
Ahmedabad and recommended expansion towards it. It
identified two broad categories for urban expansion: new
sectors adjacent to the GNA, and nucleus villages adjacent
to the city and major highways. Detailed land use surveys,
indicators of real estate demand such as records of NA per-
missions, and demographic analyses formed the basis for
determining urban expansion. Considerable areas south of
GNA between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar were identified
for systematic sector-type expansion along the highways.
The Town Road grid was extended south and southwest
towards Ahmedabad (Fig. 3). Three types of residential
zones were delineated outside GNA: approximately 495 ha
as R-5 (medium-density residential zone along main growth
corridors), 90 ha as R-6 (low-density residential towards
the River Sabarmati), and 875 ha as R-7 (medium-density
village expansion zone around seven fast growing nucleus
villages to facilitate affordable housing for villagers and
migrants). Planned density at saturation is 300 persons per
hectare (pph) for R-5, 27 pph for R-6, and 312.5 pph for R-7.
Institutional and large recreational regions were planned
along the river to encourage institutional, corporate, and rec-
reational uses. A no-development zone was proposed along
the river and canal edge with minimum intervention that
6
 In the first round, almost 300 objections and suggestions to the
draft plan were received. Preparation of the Development Plan is a
quasi-legal process. Key steps in plan preparation, review, and update
are defined in the GTPUD Act of 1976.
allowed only specific low-density activities. The Periphery
Control Act was partially repealed to allow for new growth
(GoG 2003). This plan represents a significant departure
from the original Master Plan, which had conceptualized
Gandhinagar in isolation from Ahmedabad, imposed strong
periphery control, and failed to anticipate where demand for
growth was likely to occur.
Seven villages were identified as nucleus villages due to
their high growth, strategic location near highways, proxim-
ity to GNA, village infrastructure, and market demand. From
1991 to 2001, these villages experienced double the decadal
growth rate as compared to other GUDA villages and were
transforming into small towns. Unregulated and haphazard
development without adequate infrastructure had encroached
onto narrow village lanes, leading to unhealthy living condi-
tions. The village expansion zone was demarcated around
these village gamtals based on growth projections and physi-
cal features such as lakes, streams, and river edge. Major
roads were incorporated into the plan to ensure contiguity
between existing and proposed developments and retain the
ROW for village access.
Introducing the private sector for land
development
In the original Master Plan, each sector had a strictly regu-
lated layout, and new urban expansion areas south of the
GNA were planned to be consistent with Gandhinagar’s
character. Delivery of serviced land in urban areas in Gujarat
state is managed through a two-step process defined by the
GTPUDA (GoG 1976). First, a decadal macro-level Devel-
opment Plan for the entire region is prepared. Second, many
neighborhood-level Town Planning Schemes (TP Schemes)
are prepared for areas delineated for new development
(Fig. 4). Urban expansion areas in Gandhinagar maintain
the sector-type neighborhood character and are equivalent
in shape and size to the existing sectors within GNA, but
their development mechanism involves the private sector.
The plan proposed land readjustment and land pooling in the
form of TP Schemes, which have been successfully applied
in neighboring Ahmedabad and other cities of Gujarat (Bal-
laney and Patel 2009). Major grid roads were proposed in
the Development Plan to demarcate the TP Schemes. The
purpose was to create a private land market and reduce land
speculation, reduce intense state control, and avoid the use
of eminent domain or bulk land acquisition. Expansion of
seven nucleus villages would also be facilitated through TP
Schemes.
TP Schemes are considered a market-friendly, demo-
cratic, and equitable method of land development (Ballaney
2008). In this process, agricultural lots and irregular-shaped
farmland are reconstituted into regular-shaped lots for urban
The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar experience

Fig. 3  Development plan of GUDA for 2011 shows urban expansion areas extending sector-type grid south of GNA. The inner line shows Gan-
dhinagar City or GNA extent. Source GUDA (2001b), prepared by EPC

development. The authority also provides them public road
access and infrastructure such as water supply, sewage, and
streetlights. In the land reconstitution process, the author-
ity deducts approximately 30–40% of the original land to
develop open spaces and roads, affordable housing, parks,
and other amenities.7 The landowners get back approxi-
mately 60% of their original lots, but with regular shape,
7
  GTPUD Act of 1976 allows for up to 50% land deduction from the
original lot by authority during reconstitution.
 S. Byahut
Fig. 4  Development plan and
town planning schemes in
Gujarat state
public street access, and infrastructure, which makes them
suitable for urban development. TP Scheme process is also
self-financing, as gains in property values after readjustment
and rezoning for urban use are manifold, and pay for the
cost of infrastructure and facilities development (Mittal and
Kashyap 2015; Mittal 2013, 2014; Mathur 2013).
Gandhinagar’s land development approach for future
growth is very different from Chandigarh’s. In Gandhina-
gar, periphery control was selectively repealed, and origi-
nal landowners were made partners in development so that
they would share the benefits of land value appreciation
after rezoning and readjustment. In Chandigarh, the gov-
ernments8 selectively used the periphery control to indulge
in large-scale speculation themselves, marginalizing the vil-
lagers who were then forced to approach the courts (Cha-
lana 2015). Chandigarh’s new plan for 2031 continues with
eminent domain, identifying 17 pockets on the periphery
for acquisition for urban expansion (Punjab Department of
Town and Country Planning 2015; Chandigarh Administra-
tion 2013).
8
  Chandigarh is the capital of both Haryana and Punjab states, but is
a centrally governed Union Territory.
A place‑based approach
Problems with prevalent bylaws
Building bylaws for Gandhinagar were established in the
original Master Plan when it was built in the 1960s. They
did not specify FSI9 nor zoning to regulate broad land uses.
Bylaws were lot-specific and uniformly applicable to the
entire GNA by lot type and size, specifying height, cover-
age, and margins to control the built form in a low-rise and
sparse development pattern for residential areas. They have
been rigidly implemented on a lot-by-lot basis, and perceive
a building/lot in isolation, separate from the area, and not as
tools for space formation. They did not consider the varying
conditions within different sectors, nor their topographical,
environmental, historical, or cultural features. As a result,
the city was devoid of comprehensive urban spaces and
resulted in a dull monotony and lifeless streets. Building
height and bulk for commercial, industrial, and institutional
developments have been regulated using the sanad (allot-
ment deed and plan) where bylaws are engrained. In addi-
tion, Architectural Control Sheets have regulated building
bulk, height, and character of specific sectors/areas such as
the Civic Center, the commercial districts, and government
residential buildings.
9
  Floor Space Index (FSI) is defined as the ratio of the total floor area
on all floors to the lot area. It is similar in concept to the Floor Area
Ratio (FAR).
The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar experience
Building activity within village gamtals was regulated by
locally elected village councils, which do not stipulate regu-
lations. In the rural areas around the gamtals, there has been
no approving and regulating authority for building construc-
tion and land development, except the N.A. permission.10
The bylaws within the GNA were rigid and lot-specific
with little flexibility, while extreme control was enforced by
periphery control in the rural areas outside the GNA without
regulations. While the bylaws ensured basic health, safety,
and environment, they did not allow for growth, respond to
the changes in the local economy, or consider specific needs
of various areas.
Place‑based building regulations
Development regulations typically consist of land develop-
ment procedures, regulation of activities and uses through
zoning, planning regulations, and building bylaws. Proposed
new regulations would ensure that development occurs in
accordance with the zoning in the Development Plan, super-
seding older sanad and Architectural Control Sheets in the
GNA, and provide the basis for evaluating all building per-
mit applications. While formulating place-based building
regulations, the main objective was to infuse Gandhinagar
with vibrancy and vitality, while retaining its distinct iden-
tity as a clean and green city with generous space standards
and a sector-type character. The result was an approach that
was both conservative (within GNA), and proactive (out-
side GNA). Both GNA and urban expansion areas were
categorized into broad land use zones and sub-zones based
on the existing built form character and predominant uses,
proposed uses, and urban design considerations. Place-based
regulations were articulated for each land use zone to pro-
duce a consistent character within that zone.
To obtain political and bureaucratic support for the new
plan for the state capital, planners adopted a conservative
approach.11 Regulations were designed to be consistent with
the architectural profiles of buildings already within GNA
sectors. After careful consideration, changes were proposed
to selectively introduce new activities to make Gandhinagar
Town Roads and economy vibrant, without compromising
its formal and stately character. Regulations retained the
low-density and sparse development pattern of the existing
built form, but promoted infill development and street-level
retail along four specific Town Roads and on vacant lands.
Land use zones were identified for all areas and sectors
10
  The only approval process in villages is the Non-Agriculture (NA)
use Permission given by the District Collectorate, which does not
specifically regulate land development or building construction.
11
  At the highest level the Chief Minister and other ministers, bureau-
crats, and senior government officials also reviewed the concept plan.
within GNA, as opposed to the previous lot-specific use
determination. Height and bulk of buildings were specified
by zoning types and along Town Roads to avoid an incon-
gruous built environment.
Regulations for urban expansion areas outside the GNA
were also consistent with the overall character of Gandhina-
gar. In the residential zones, a wide range of lot sizes were
specified to encourage a variety of housing types. In addi-
tion to broadly regulating land uses, place-based regulations
stipulated varying building height and bulk requirements
and design specifications as per road hierarchy to achieve
the desired urban form. Building heights, lot sizes, margins,
and setbacks were specified with respect to the width of the
adjacent street so that larger and traffic generating build-
ings would locate on wider arterials, and smaller buildings
would locate on inner roads to improve traffic and trans-
portation efficiency. Lower intensity residential, retail, and
agriculture-based economic activities were specified for
nucleus villages with character complementary to the exist-
ing gamtals. For their protection and appropriate community
uses, very low intensity recreational and open space compat-
ible with the natural environment were earmarked along the
riverbank, canal, streams, and village ponds. Heritage regu-
lations were introduced for conservation of step-wells, old
mansions, and other heritage of local, regional, or national
importance. The format of the regulations themselves was
simplified to clarify the built form and land uses, increase
transparency, and remove loopholes.
Urban design studies
Several urban design studies analyzing streetscapes and
building heights and bulk were undertaken for specifying
place-based building regulations for specific zones. These
provided a visual representation of the form and character of
the urban form that would emerge over time with implemen-
tation of new regulations and land readjustment processes.
Since these were based on actual lot organization and own-
ership patterns, they also helped in delineating TP Scheme
boundaries.
Infill and street edge development along Town
Roads
Within GNA, underutilization of land is expressed in vacant
lots, residual open spaces, little street activity, and absence
of a vibrant city life. With many front lots vacant, build-
ings are far away from Town Roads, and street-level design
elements are missing. Due to lack of retail or spaces for
informal sector activity, unauthorized development has taken
pace. The redevelopment scenario examined vacant lots and
residual open spaces for infill development as commercial
 S. Byahut
Fig. 5  Illustration of existing situation and infill development scenarios in existing GNA sectors. Source GUDA (2001b), prepared by EPC
use and opportunities for additional housing in various sec-
tors (Fig. 5). To make streets livelier, the new plan envis-
ages retail and other non-residential activities along select
Town Roads (Fig. 6). New service roads are introduced to
provide access to the infill retail and mixed use areas. Town
Roads remain very wide (from 45 to 100 m), so scenarios
accommodate existing trees, access roads, wide sidewalks,
medians, curbs, roadside parking, and space for informal
activities. Since the regulations for residential areas within
GNA are building and lot specific and no FSI is prescribed,
the new development would retain existing lot sizes with
varying height and bulk requirements to promote compact
development. The FSI ranges from 1.0 to 1.2, and the per-
missible height is 10 m (3 floors), plus an additional parking
floor for apartments. A built-to-line is prescribed at the road
edge for infill areas.
The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar experience

Fig. 6  Illustration of existing situation and infill development scenarios along Town Roads. Source GUDA (2001b), prepared by EPC

Urban expansion areas outside GNA
The desired built form character could be ingrained in
TP Schemes by organizing development according to lot
sizes, heights, and margins in relation to abutting roads.
Development scenarios envisaged resultant built form of
urban expansion areas that will emerge after land read-
justment. In the Development Plan, high-rise commercial
(C-4) and institutional (I-3) zones are proposed at strategic
locations contiguous to the GNA and along major highway
 S. Byahut
Fig. 7  Urban design scenarios illustrating resultant built form for the urban expansion area. Source Prepared by EPC
extending Gandhinagar southward towards Ahmedabad.
The minimum lot size is 2500 m2 with permissible building
height of 18 m plus parking (7-stories), 1.5 FSI, and 30%
ground coverage. Built-to-line is prescribed at 6 m for lots
on 24 m or wider roads, and 4.5 m on narrower roads. Next
to this is medium-density residential zone (R-5) with FSI
of 1.5 and 18 m height plus parking (7 stories) on 24 m or
wider roads, and 12 m (4 storied) on narrower roads. Low-
density residential zone (R-6) close to the river allows 7 m
(2-stories) permissible height, 10% ground coverage, and a
minimum lot size of 2000 m2. By coordinating the planning
and design of adjoining TP Schemes, it is possible to cre-
ate an interlinked system of neighborhood and community
level open spaces. This scenario visualizes a stretch across
the highway where a linear pattern is generated by organ-
izing green spaces weaving through various neighborhoods
(Fig. 7). The desired urban form is generated by consolidat-
ing lots belonging to the local authority, inter-connecting
open spaces, and placing public amenities near them. The
intensity of development is highest along major roads and
reduces away from them.
Regulating haphazard growth in nucleus villages
Chiloda was identified as one of the seven nucleus villages
since it was experiencing high growth due to proximity to
GNA and location on a highway intersection. The gamtal
has an undulating approach road encroached upon by small
shops, a village pond with open space around it, and a stream
next to it significant illegal encroachments and informal
activities had emerged around the intersection. The Devel-
opment Plan proposed a TP Scheme of approximately 90 ha
based on N.A. permissions, illegal encroachments, and pro-
jected growth. In the village expansion zone (R-7), the FSI
is 1.25, and the permissible height is 10 m (3 stories) in
addition to a parking floor. In this scenario, approximately
60% of the original lot is returned to the landowner as final
lot after reconstitution (Fig. 8). Approximately 40% land is
deducted: 15–18% for streets, 5% for open spaces, and the
rest for amenities, affordable housing, and lots for sale by
the authority. The gamtal is defined by a peripheral road,
the village pond, and stream, with parks and gardens organ-
ized alongside. Land along the highway is reconstituted for
commerce and light industries, and for residential use along
village roads. Similarly, Adalaj and several other nucleus
villages were identified due to their strategic location close
to Ahmedabad and a high growth rate. Detailed urban design
exercises were used to illustrate the built form and develop-
ment scenarios after implementation of TP Schemes.
Plan implementation
Addressing rigid land development and control was quite
challenging for creating a vibrant Gandhinagar. It was appar-
ent that a radical departure from eminent domain would be
necessary for promoting, as opposed to controlling growth,
and for creating and operationalizing a private real estate
market, where one had not existed. Considerable lands were
opened up for private development by creating new sectors
The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar experience
Fig. 8  Urban design exercise illustrating village expansion for Chil-
oda. Top from left: village gamtal and existing developments, hap-
hazard growth scenario, and planned development scenario. Bottom
in areas where demand for land was the highest to bring
down land prices to realistic levels. GUDA had limited suc-
cess in implementing 2011 plan during the following decade.
While areas outside the GNA are experiencing large-scale
development, GNA sectors have not changed much. Antici-
pated infill and redevelopment of older areas or new retail
and residential development has yet to take off. Planners
identified institutional factors as a critical barrier to plan
implementation.12 GUDA’s jurisdiction overlapped with that
of the GCPD in GNA. After the establishment of GUDA
in 1996, planning, land development, building permission,
and other functions in GNA continued to be controlled by
the Gandhinagar Capital Projects Division (GCPD). GCPD
is under the purview of the state’s Roads and Building
12
  Expert interviews with GUDA planners, including with Mr. M.M.
Bhaumick on August 24, 2016. Mr. Bhaumick was the Senior Town
Planner with GUDA who led the planning team for the 2011 Devel-
opment Plan and oversaw its implementation for several years.
from left: original land holdings, reconstituted final lots scenario, and
Draft TP Scheme sanctioned in 2006. Source Prepared by EPC
Department, whereas GUDA is under the state’s Urban
Development and Urban Housing Department. At the time,
GUDA was a nascent organization that lacked the institu-
tional capacity and staff to fully implement the plan, so it
decided to focus its efforts on urban expansion areas outside
the GNA.
In principle, the Development Plan is enforced for the
entire urban area including the municipal area. In practice,
a locally elected municipality/municipal corporation is the
main enforcement agency within city limits, and the urban/
area authority such as GUDA is the enforcement agency out-
side city limits. Due to the absence of a municipal govern-
ment in Gandhinagar, development regulation within GNA
remained firmly with the GCPD, which continued to exercise
rigid control on land use and development. It continued to
regulate development using sanad and architectural control
sheets, and refused permissions for lot amalgamation com-
bining two or more small lots, including in areas identified
for retail and commercial development in the GNA sectors.
Small lots are under different ownerships, and it has not been
 S. Byahut
Fig. 9  Top from left: TP scheme sanctioned by GoG in 2010, new
roads and planned development in the urban expansion area between
Gandhinagar & Ahmedabad. Source GUDA a, Google Maps  2017.
possible for developers to create a larger lot desirable for
retail use, which has been a deterrent for infill development.
Service roads along Town Roads have been built to provide
access to peripheral lots, but the administrative character of
GNA has remained largely unchanged.
Plan implementation has been more effective in the new
urban expansion areas outside GNA between Ahmedabad
and Gandhinagar where GUDA has authority. Most new
roads have been built as planned, and in several areas,
new developments have far surpassed the 2011 plan. After
decades of rigid periphery control, the Development Plan
brought in a rush of large-scale retail, entertainment, mixed
use, residential, and institutional developments in the urban
expansion areas between Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad
(Fig. 9). GUDA has completed 23 TP Schemes covering
3250 ha in the urban expansion areas including nucleus vil-
lages as outlined in the plan (GUDA a). Simultaneously,
the state is undertaking various initiatives to promote
Gandhinagar as a major corporate, financial, and institu-
tional hub. There is a concerted effort to establish higher
educational institutes to attract younger population to the
Gandhinagar region, which continues to be perceived as a
place for government employees and retirees. This includes
creating a “Knowledge Corridor” for which 300 ha land
has been pooled through TP Schemes and allotted to many
Bottom: photographs of recent residential and institutional develop-
ments. Photographs by author in 2016
educational and research institutes13 (GUDA b). Planning
on the Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT-City),
one of the largest International Finance Service14 centers in
the world, was initiated in 2007 on the eastern side of the
river that is expected to create thousands of finance sector
jobs and boost the regional economy. Approximately 400 ha
were allotted to enable this via a modification to the 2011
plan, and construction is currently underway on several
high-rise towers which is dramatically changing the quiet
rural landscape. The Gandhinagar region is now transition-
ing towards state-promoted, corporate, technology-led entre-
preneurial urbanism (Datta 2015). With repeal of periphery
control, planned development, and state-led large-scale
investments, Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar have become
one mega-region.
13
  Including the Gujarat National Law University, National Institute
of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Indian Institute of Health
Management, Indian Institute of Technology-Gandhinagar, Institute
of Seismological Research, Gujarat Energy Research and Manage-
ment Institute, Gujarat State Disaster Management Institute, and Pan-
dit Deen Dayal Petroleum University.
14
 GIFT-City will include a special economic zone (SEZ), inter-
national education zone, integrated townships, entertainment zone,
hotels, convention center, international techno park, shopping malls,
stock exchanges, service units, etc.
The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar experience
While the 1966 Master Plan had focused on creating
physical infrastructure and buildings, it had relied solely on
existing state departments to implement it. The 2011 plan
was prepared following an effort bring Gandhinagar into
the legal planning and administrative framework of Gujarat.
However, success was limited within the GNA due to lack
of clarity on regulating agencies and overlapping jurisdic-
tions. In recent years, GUDA has gained capacity and has
become better equipped to prepare and enforce plans. It is
currently updating the Development Plan for the year 2024,
since the GTPUD Act of 1976 mandates a decadal revision
(GoG 1976). The 2024 draft plan15 aims to ease out the
regulatory barriers that impacted the implementation of the
2011 plan (GUDA 2014). Specifically, it will ensure that
new regulations within the GNA take precedence over older
architectural control sheets and sanad. Old and dilapidated
government housing is proposed to be redeveloped as afford-
able housing for the poor. Land has been earmarked along
Town Roads for urban amenities, and along 18 m or wider
roads for private sector retail to spur infill development.
Importantly, it outlines processes for lot amalgamation so
that developers can combine two or more smaller residential
lots into a larger lot for retail and mixed use developments.
The 2024 plan encourages 5-storied buildings on 260 m2 and
larger lots for redevelopment. It envisages higher intensity
development by increasing FSI (from 1.8 to 2.25 in zone
R-4 and from 1.25 to 1.5 in zone R-5), removing lot cover-
age restrictions, relaxing margins, and proposes completing
the pedestrian and bicycle network according to the original
Master Plan. The 2024 draft plan envisages an industrial
resurgence, demarcating a massive 1900 ha area for insti-
tutional and residential expansion across the river for the
state’s ambitious GIFT-City. It anticipates very high growth,
anticipating that GUDA population will reach 1 million by
2031. The 2011 plan illustrates that it is possible to achieve
an organized built form with private sector participation,
with proposed new development under the 2024 plan con-
tinuing to mirror Gandhinagar’s sector pattern through the
TP Scheme mechanism. In 2010, the Gandhinagar Municipal
Corporation (GMC), an elected local government with taxa-
tion ability was constituted, and city functions are slowly
being transferred to it from the GNAC and GCPD. This will
overcome several regulatory hurdles, promote redevelop-
ment opportunities, and revitalize the state capital, as was
the intent of the 2011 Development Plan.
15
  2024 draft plan has been submitted to the state, but is yet to be
approved.
Conclusions
The interesting question is what the future holds for post-
colonial New Towns such as Chandigarh, Gandhinagar, Bhu-
baneshwar, Jamshedpur, and countless others built in the past
half-century in India and in other countries having a colo-
nial past. Even though these towns were built fairly recently
with highest space standards and planning norms, they lack
market-based mechanisms to respond to the dynamic needs
of growing economies, as well as ensure that planning for
growth is aligned with anticipated future demand. Planners
particularly struggle to find the right tools and land develop-
ment mechanisms to manage the delicate balance between
preserving the uniquely modern architectural character of
new towns, and simultaneously create a diverse and vibrant
economy. The Gandhinagar example provides insights into
the process and challenges of re-planning a planned New
Town, and transitioning from a state-led land development
model using eminent domain to a land reconstitution-based
development model with private sector involvement.
Building regulations are the strongest tool available to
planners for promoting and ensuring that development hap-
pens as planned. In the Gandhinagar plan, proposed regu-
lations for GNA were consistent with the existing urban
form within each sector, yet also identified strategic areas
for infill, mixed use, retail, and other activities. Place-based
building regulations were incorporated within a comprehen-
sive planning methodology, creatively used to infuse new
economic and cultural vibrancy to the city, while maintain-
ing its administrative and formal character. While the place-
based building regulations superseded the original form-
based approach in Gandhinagar city, the emphasis continued
to be on form. While the original 1960s Gandhinagar plan
was monotonous and lifeless, the 2011 plan also aimed to
maintain its ‘formal and stately’ character. Although build-
ing controls are the strongest planning tools, planners need
to take account of their larger impact and consider how they
can effectively achieve improved planning outcomes.
Urban design studies and scenarios are effective tools at
planners’ disposal. Studies based on actual land ownership
and lot organization patterns can help planners visualize
the resultant built form densities, the character of a place,
future development possibilities, and inform building regu-
lations. In Gandhinagar, these studies formed a crucial part
of the comprehensive planning methodology, informing the
formulation of place-based building regulations that were
creatively applied to guide the character of urban growth.
These were specific to various parts of the city/region, each
with a distinct character worth either preserving, altering,
or promoting. As effective visualization tools, they assisted
planners in understanding the visual impact of infill develop-
ment on vacant and underutilized lands, ensuring planned
 S. Byahut
development in booming villages next to the city, deter-
mining the TP Scheme boundaries for land readjustment,
ensuring that new growth is consistent with the character
of the existing city, and serving a variety of other planning
objectives.
Future development is realized and regulated through
comprehensive planning and proactive actions of the devel-
opment authority and other agencies. It is therefore neces-
sary to introduce a system of periodically updating plans
and policies to enable planning to cope up with growth and
demand in fast growing economies. But while plans are
essential, they are only tools to facilitate various proposals
and policies, land use zoning, and development regulations.
In Gandhinagar, lack of functional clarity between multiple
agencies and state departments such as GUDA, the GNAC,
the GCPD, and the GMC continued to be hindrances to
diverse economic growth and plan implementation in the
city, prompting the state to focus its efforts on the periph-
ery. An appropriate institutional framework is necessary
to clarify functions and resolve overlapping jurisdictions.
A proactive and cooperative approach with open dialogue
between various state departments and planning agencies
that addresses community and private sector needs are nec-
essary for stimulating economic growth and better realiza-
tion of plans.
References
Banerjee, T. 2009. US planning expeditions to postcolonial India:
From ideology to innovation in technical assistance. Journal of
the American Planning Association 75 (2): 193–208.
Banerjee and Baer. 1984. Beyond the neighborhood unit: Residential
environments and public policy. New York: Plenum Press.
Ballaney, S. 2008. The town planning mechanism in Gujarat. India:
World Bank Institute, Washington, DC.
Ballaney, S., and B. Patel. 2009. Using the ‘Development Plan—Town
Planning Scheme’ mechanism to appropriate land and build urban
infrastructure. India Infrastructure Report 190–205.
Bhattacharya, R., and K. Sanyal. 2011. Bypassing the squalor: New
towns, immaterial labour and exclusion in post-colonial urbanisa-
tion. Economic & Political Weekly 46 (31): 41–49.
Chalana, M. 2015. Chandigarh: City and periphery. Journal of Plan-
ning History 14 (1): 62–84.
Chandigarh Administration. 2013. Chandigarh master plan 2031.
http://chand​igarh​.gov.in/cmp_2031.htm. Accessed Sept 2016.
Chaudhry, P., K. Bagra, and B. Singh. 2011. Urban greenery status of
some Indian cities: A short communication. International Journal
of Environmental Science and Development 2 (2): 98.
Clapson, M. 1998. Invincible green suburbs, brave new towns: Social
change and urban dispersal in postwar England. Manchester, UK:
Manchester University Press.
Datta, A. 2015. New urban utopias of postcolonial India ‘Entrepre-
neurial urbanization’ in Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues
in Human Geography 5 (1): 3–22.
Dikshit, N.G. 1993. Temporal variations in resident’s perception of a
planned city: Gandhinagar, Gujarat. The Geographer 40 (2): 39.
Fitting, P. 2002. Urban planning, utopian dreaming: Le Corbusier’s
Chandigarh today. Utopian Studies 13 (1): 69–93.
Glover, W.J. 2012. The troubled passage from ‘village communities’
to planned New Town developments in mid-twentieth-century
South Asia. Urban History 39 (1): 108–127.
GoG. 2003. The Gujarat New Capital (Periphery) Control (Repeal)
Act, 2003 (The Gujarat Government Gazette, Vol. XLIV dated
March 3, 2003). Gandhinagar: Government of Gujarat.
GoG. 1976. Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act
of 1976 (President’s Act No. 27 of 1976). Gandhinagar: Urban
Development Department, Government of Gujarat.
GoG. 1960. The Gujarat New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1960.
The Gujarat Government State Gazette dated September 23,
1960. Gandhinagar: Government of Gujarat.
GOI. 2001. District census handbook, Part—XII A&B. Gandhinagar
district village & town directory—Village and townwise pri-
mary census abstract. Gujarat: Director of Census Operations,
Government of India.
GUDA. 2001a. Development plan and implementation strategy for
GUDA for 2011 AD, Part 1: Studies and analysis. Prepared
by Environmental Planning Collaborative, Gandhinagar Urban
Development Authority.
GUDA. 2001b. Development plan and implementation strategy for
GUDA for 2011 AD, Part 2: Proposals and policies. Prepared
by Environmental Planning Collaborative, Gandhinagar Urban
Development Authority.
GUDA. 2001c. Development plan and implementation strategy for
GUDA for 2011 AD, Part 3: General development control reg-
ulations. Prepared by Environmental Planning Collaborative,
Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority.
GUDA. 2014. First draft of the revised development plan—2024.
Gandhinagar: Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority.
GUDA. a. Town planning schemes. http://www.guda.gujar​at.gov.in/
tpsch​eme.htm. Accessed Feb 2017.
GUDA. b. Projects. http://www.guda.gujar​at.gov.in/proje​cts.htm.
Accessed Feb 2017.
Haynes, D.E., and N. Rao. 2013. Beyond the colonial city: Re-eval-
uating the urban history of India, ca. 1920–1970, South Asia.
Journal of South Asian Studies 36 (3): 317–335.
House of Commons. 2002. Select committee on transport, local gov-
ernment and the regions—Nineteenth report. https​://web.archi​
ve.org/web/20160​30322​0058/. http://www.parli​ament​.the-stati​
onery​- offic​e .co.uk/pa/cm200​1 02/cmsel​e ct/cmtlg ​r /603/60304​
.htm. Accessed Feb 2017.
Kalia, R. 1985. Chandigarh: A planned city. Habitat International
9 (3/4): 135–150.
Kalia, R. 1997. Bhubaneswar: Contrasting visions in traditional
Indian and modern European architecture. Journal of Urban
History 23 (2): 164–191.
Kalia, R. 2004. Gandhinagar: Building national identity in post-
colonial India. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Kalia, R. 2006a. Modernism, modernization and post-colonial India:
A reflective essay. Planning Perspectives 21: 133–156.
Kalia, R. 2006b. Cityscapes. India International Centre Quarterly
33 (3/4): 140–149.
Lawhon, L. 2009. The neighborhood unit: Physical design or physi-
cal determinism? Journal of Planning History 8 (2): 111–132.
Mathur, S. 2013. Self-financing urbanization: Insights from the use
of Town Planning Schemes in Ahmadabad, India. Cities 31:
308–316.
Mehaffy, M., S. Portab, Y. Rofe, and N. Salingarosd. 2010. Urban
nuclei and the geometry of streets: The ‘emergent neighbor-
hoods’ model. Urban Design International 15: 22–46.
Mittal, J., and A. Kashyap. 2015. Real estate market led land devel-
opment strategies for regional economic corridors—A tale of
two mega projects. Habitat International 47: 205–217.
The unique challenges of planning a New Town: the Gandhinagar experience
Mittal, J. 2013. Extending land readjustment schemes to regional scale:
A case of regional ring road via mosaicking neighbourhood level
plans. Real Estate Finance 30 (2): 62–73.
Mittal, J. 2014. Self-financing land and urban development via land
readjustment and value capture. Habitat International 44:
314–323.
Perera, N. 2004. Contesting visions: hybridity, liminality and author-
ship of the Chandigarh plan. Planning Perspectives 19: 175–199.
Prakash, D. 2016. Messy work: Transnational collaboration in Chan-
digarh. In Messy urbanism: Understanding the “other” cities of
Asia, ed. M. Chalana and J. Hou. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Uni-
versity Press.
Punjab Department of Town and Country Planning. 2015. Detailing of
master plan: New Chandigarh, vol. 1. Punjab: AECOM India Pvt.
Ltd., Department of Town & Country Planning.
Shah, D., and A. Bagchi. 2016. Evaluating plan, growth and peripheral
control in capital cities of Chandigarh and Gandhinagar. Paper
presented at the 64th national town & country planners congress,
January 8–10, 2016, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Shaw, A. 2009. Town planning in postcolonial India, 1947-1965: Chan-
digarh re-examined. Urban Geography 30 (8): 857–878.
View publication stats
Sood, A. 2015. Industrial townships and the policy facilitation of cor-
porate urbanisation in India. Urban Studies 52 (8): 1359–1378.
Sinha, A., and J. Singh. 2011. Jamshedpur: Planning an ideal steel city
in India. Journal of Planning History 10 (4): 263–268.
TCPO. 2009. Report on formulating a master plan for Chandigarh.
New Delhi: Town & Country Planning Organisation, Ministry of
Urban Development, Government of India.
Vidyarthi, S. 2015. One idea, many plans: An American city design
concept in independent India. New York: Routledge.
Vidyarthi, S. 2010a. Inappropriately appropriated or innovatively indi-
genized? Neighborhood unit concept in post-independence India.
Journal of Planning History 9 (4): 260–276.
Vidyarthi, S. 2010b. Reimagining American neighborhood unit for
India. In Crossing borders: International exchange and planning
practices, ed. P. Healey and R. Upton. London: Routledge.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.