Article -'Kathmandu Valley; City of Hope and Despair', Sahari Vikas, 2006 (April-September) Year 6,
Vol. 11, Special Publication of GoN/Department of Urban Development and
Building Construction to mark the UN Habitat Day, P. 38-41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ar. Sanjaya Uprety
SONA
Cities in Asia and the Pacific are centers of both hope and despair:
while being engines of economic and social development they are also congested centers of poverty and environmental deterioration. Despite the relative
abundance of health facilities in urban areas as compare to rural areas, the
quality of life is poor especially of those living below the subsistence level mainly
due to the lack of 'basic level of urban infrastructures’[1].
This is quite contrast with many traditional towns where urban centers were
planned to create a socio-cultural living with efficient management of inter dependencies between man and nature. Traditionally urban development
efforts in Kathmandu Valley, especially in medieval period, had been envisaged
with management of such inter dependencies and problematic of socio-cultural
integration, as it was to be expected given the nature of the demand to which it
was a response, a demand determined by the necessity of defense and continuity
for survival through subsistence economy. Such effort testifies to urban planning
that aimed at creating a city, which is economically viable, socially
acceptable, culturally adaptable and environmentally sustainable. The continuity[2]
of existence of medieval towns of Kathmandu Valley till date accounts for the
success of these cities as self-sustainable “social units[3]”
in time and space. Living in medieval towns of Kathmandu Valley was “social
experience” experienced through the efficient functioning in terms of meeting
human needs. However the departure from traditional urban pattern of Kathmandu
Valley during the Rana Rule and the modern development that followed after the downfall
of Rana oligarchy has been rather haphazard in terms of spatial expansion at
the cost of limited resources due to rapid urbanization[4].
The increasing population size and consumption vis-à-vis limited
resources have demanded urban management of Kathmandu Valley to be more
efficient in terms of achieving goals of sustainable urban development. This
paradigm of sustainable development aims, to quote the words of the World
Commission on Environment and Development, to meet ‘the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own
needs’. At the same time it tries to define “present needs” as distributive justice
of the wealth; that is to say, providing empowered access to resources for all
section of society both socioeconomically and spatially. The urban development practice
in Kathmandu Valley has not been able to create a balanced development between
the valley and its hinterland in terms of creating effective demand for goods
and services through planned economic investment in urban infrastructure and
the housing sectors. As a result economic uncertainties marred by inflation,
unemployment and poor living condition have made living in the valley very
expensive and difficult. This has given rise to multitude of social problems
which are evident in growing social crimes and evils in recent times.
Similarly, the mismatch between the development goal of Kathmandu Valley and
the subsequent strategies adopted has not contributed much to retain the
cultural significance of the valley. In such a situation the inputs required
for sustainable urban development in terms of socio-economic and spatial plane
needs to be redefined rationally. In socio-economic plane, sustainability requires
building a sense of community within the present society and the future
generation who have equitable access to the wealth or development benefits for
the continuation of new urban social order that is adaptable to change. This is
not impossible if spatial character of the city is well conceived and dealt in
terms of its linkages to the surrounding areas, preserving the cultural
identity through planned economic investment and creating goods and services,
especially the housing, for effective demand of the people. It is within this background;
this paper attempts highlighting the probable factors that can contribute
negatively to the sustainability of the valley. Degrading socio-cultural condition
evident in the loss of cultural identity, social distancing of the populace
through residential differentiation caused by poor infrastructure condition, unplanned
investment of property capital and lack of access to housing has been taken as
major factors for the discussion.
In Kathmandu Valley, contrast to traditional urban sustainability,
resources is being depleted and living, especially for low income and poor, has
become difficult if not impossible. The reasons for depletion can be attributed
to inefficient and inappropriate use of resources that have contributed to
environmental degradation and inequitable development. One of the major
problems with environmental degradation and inequitable development in
Kathmandu Valley can be related to the poor level of existing infrastructure
and subsequent planning effort to provide access to infrastructure for all
sections of the society. An example of skewed access to the infrastructure service
can be noticed in the decreasing proportion of pedestrian walkways to vehicular
roads. Such situation has contributed to inequitable distribution of services that
have negative consequences manifested in increasing air pollution, accidents
and traffic congestion.
Another important deterrent in making Kathmandu Valley a city of hope
is material and non-material cultural degradation due to unplanned economic
development, especially the commercial development. Since most of the urban
areas of Nepal including Kathmandu valley are not industrial towns but more of
consumer towns, where services are produced and consumed, the approach to
economic planning needs a different outlook. The realization of this reality
can be asserted in the form of past initiative to develop tourism related service
industry in the valley for its obvious advantage of being heritage city.
However, the experience indicates that this realization could not be
realistically materialized due to the unplanned and incompatible economic
investment.
Today Kathmandu as an urban area has a number of reference: it may
refer to a spatial form, to a cultural pattern or to a structural from. But,
essentially urbanism in Kathmandu Valley is the cultural expression of spatial form.
However in contemporary context the cultural expression of spatial form of the
city could not be continued due to unplanned economic, social and spatial planning.
A clear account of this fact can be traced in the commercial development in and
around the cultural towns[5]
and its corresponding effects. The effect at its best could be noticed in the
decay of traditional urban areas (today popularly referred as cultural heritage
sites). In micro-economic sense, the huge investment of property capital in and
around such heritage sites was initially encouraged by the tourism activity, proximity
to infrastructure and dense settlement of the core and, later by the
agglomeration of commercial and administrative units. Characteristically,
property capital[6] favors
buildings for administrative, commercial and financial activities that is to say
office blocks, shopping centers recreational and many other commercial spaces.
The prime investment motive here would be guided by the maximization of the
profit. With the locational and situational advantages developer enjoys, people
are willing to pay high rent thereby resulting into astronomical rise in the
cost of the land in core areas. This means the traditional core area remains impoverished
due to the owners unwillingness to invest in maintenance and development
causing the decay of urban fabric. Unplanned investment of property capital in
incompatible commercial development in and around city core has largely
contributed to the decay of such heritage sites in terms of urban spaces and
built form. In the absence of timely planned economic investment in medium
scale commercial development and failure to respond to the new urban dynamics
through appropriate urban renewal plan has left Kathmandu city core to
transform at random creating multitude of environmental problems (viz.
problematic of congestion, open space encroachment, light and ventilation, architectural
image, safety and security etc).
Another aspect that needs mention here is the shift from traditional
concept of sustainable land development to the new paradigm largely guided by
economic determinism, which at its best is for creating economic benefits at
any cost. This is conspicuously prominent, as mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, in the nature of investment of property capital, which with profit maximization
at the centre of development concept, is unwilling to invest in social
infrastructure like housing. The end result is development of larger commercial
spaces and luxury residential lots in central areas alienating and pushing the
middle income, low income and economically weaker sections of society to the
edge of the city in insalubrious housing conditions at the cost of fringe
areas. Public sector’s financial limitation to extend the trunk infrastructure
to these areas and distancing of populace from work place due to poor transportation
system has had negative socio-economic and environmental consequences. The
issue of housing, in Kathmandu Valley, has been debated on two grounds; one
providing all urban dwellers access to serviced land and other is providing
dwelling unit through improved land and housing market mechanism. However the experience
to date reveals that this has not happened due to ineffective urban management
caused by various limitations in local and central government levels. Public sector’s
investment in urban land market has not been able to meet the growing demand[7]
leaving the development practice to informal developers at large. Similarly the
emergence of organised housing developers, largely acting in unregulated market
condition, has limited their investment of property capital into luxury
residential development which is beyond the affordability of the needy section
of society. Such development has contributed to overcrowding in areas, which
are considered to be ecologically sensitive and economically not viable. Such
problem has its root to the poor and inefficient urban management that has contributed
to differential social living. The growing differential social living in
Kathmandu as evident in the residential development (in fringe, sub-urban
areas) has been a key issue in the depletion of inelastic natural resources
(over exploitation/pollution of water, soil, air etc) of the Valley.
It is thus seen that failure to address the problematic of
infrastructure, socio-culturally compatible economic investment in urban areas
and affordable housing development for creating multicultural homogeneity have
been root causes that have hindered Kathmndu Valley’s quest for sustainable development.
In spatial sense, urban planning aiming at spatial containment of populace for
community living, preservation of utility value of cultural heritage, developing
mutually dependable linkages to the resource base and planned investment for
income increase through market economy to create effective demand for social
infrastructure will be keys of sustainable development in Kathmandu Valley. It
can be achieved, as done in the past, by creating balanced dependencies between
Kathmandu Valley and its hinterland through graded linkage development. So, one
of the desirable departures in bringing about sustainability in current pattern
of urban development is re-densification of the city core and development of
urban-rural linkage and nurturing the urban rural continuum. This demands an appropriate
urban planning intervention, which should aim at developing Kathmandu Valley
for its cultural identity[8]
and socio-economic development through the realistic addressing of key
development issues related to sustainable urban development. Then only
Kathmandu Valley as a city can be argued as magnet of hope in true sense rather
than resorting to argumentum at populum
References
Herbert DT & et. al., Social Areas in Cities; Process,
Patterns and Problems, John Wiley & sons Ltd, UK, 1978
Lamarche, Francois, Property
Development and the Economy Foundations of the Urban Question, Appeared
in “Urban Sociology; Critical Essays”, edited by C. G. Pickvance, Tavistock
Publication, UK,1977
Midgley James, Fields of Practice and Professional
Roles for Social Planners, appeared in the “Fields and Methods of
Social Planning”, Edited by James Midgley & David Piachaud, St. Martin
Press, NY, 1984
Tiwari S. R., Sustainable
Urban Development; Lessons from Historical Asian Cities-Theoretical Elaborations
and Past Parallels, based upon the papers presented in “International
Conference on Culture in Sustainability of Cities II, Kanazawa, Japan. Oct.
2000, International Conference on Culture in Sustainability of Cities III,
Chongju, Korea, May 2001(UNU/IAS & IICRC)
Uprety Sanjaya, Private
Sector and Urban Land Development in Kathmandu Valley; Review of Policy Paradoxes,
Research Paper, SONA Journal, Kathmandu, 2006.
[1] 30% of the developing world's population does not have access to
proper sanitation-over 50% in the case of Asia
In the main cities of developing world, 40-50%
population live in slums and informal settlements
[2] Continuity is not in the sense of the continuation of the traditional
urban pattern but as an entity of medieval town
[3] Social unit may be defined as social system and system of action which
when coincides with spatial units, the terms community and urban institutions are usually
used
[4]
The population of Kathmandu Valley grew at an
average annual rate of 4.6% in 1970 and reached above 6% in 1980. In 2001, the
growth rate of the valley is estimated at 3.36 with over 50% of the total urban
population of Nepal living here
[5] Malla towns namely Bhaktapur, Kathmandu, Patan and other rural towns
of the valley
[6]
In Kathmandu Valley, other than property and
labor capital, only service producing industrial capital investment(e.g.
tourism industry) is as appropriate for its ecological vulnerability
[7] The attempts by public sector towards meeting the demand could produce
only 6% (280 ha) in two decades
[8]
The cultural identity in question is not the
continuity of traditional culture but the transformation according to modern
time, space and the existing conditions
Posts
