An elaborate model by jaypee

The first table deals with the extent of semi-urban and rural land that got converted into urban and semi-urban in two Indian metros during 1998-2000 period, and the second one is on the quantity of carbon in these two metros.

In 1998, 400sq/kms of semi-urban land got converted into urban land in Mumbai, and its extent kept on increasing over the years with 1999 recording an up by 50% followed by a slowdown in 2000, 700 sq/kms. But in 2001, the figure shot up to 1200, a clean three-fold rise. The corresponding figures for Culcutta show contrasting findings for the first two years. It was almost half, but in 1999, 2000 period, there was a leveling up for both, 1200 sq/kms.

Moving on to rural to semi-urban, the pattern is same. Mumbai stood first with 1998 claiming 600 sq/kms, and the figure went on surging and in 2000, it touched 1000 mark. But Culcutta had a slow pace. The figures were like 100, 275, 360 and 900 respectively. 

In the case of carbon footprint also, there was an upward spiral and obviously Mumbai stood first. It was190 kgms/sqkms and in four years’ time it shot up to 600, an increase by three times. The corresponding figures for Culcutta were almost 50% of Mumbai’s. 

Task II

The best way out to limit uncontrolled urban expansion is to encourage vertical growth of urban landscapes.

• How far do you agree or disagree with this?

The fast-paced urbanization is a severe concern across the world. There are several alternatives to curb this horizontal expansion, and promoting vertical growth is construed to be the best. In my opinion, going vertical too sounds a few alarm bells. Let me check it out.

At the face of it, vertical growth in urban landscapes can make great differences in what we call mindless urban horizontal expansion leading to huge land acquisition, ecological concerns and social disorders. Primarily, upper segment of the cities are otherwise useless, and the heightened need for space makes it meaningful to exploit such voids. This would definitely have great impact on the way cities expand sideways.

For example, multi-storey commercial and residential edifices can accommodate huge number of offices and families. This saves a lot of space, energy and time. So, to an extent, vertical growth is likely to address a few pestering questions raised by haphazard urbanization. 

However, there are questions still. Vertical growth cannot meet all the requirement of urbanization. Urbanization does not simply mean accommodating offices and people. It is of infrastructure, supplies, roads, railways, sea and airports, securities, sanitation and the list is enormous. So, vertical growth will not be able to meet all these. And finally, the threats vertical growth poses are so big that at times of calamites, both manmade and natural, the risks will be far beyond all calculations. 

Concluding it, I find it right to add that vertical growth as such is fine to a limited extent, but in the long run what is likely to make real changes in the congested metros is nothing but horizontal expansion carried out in a scientific, futuristic and phased manner.

270 words

Ajaypeesdoc. 2.8.012