BW Smart Cities: Being one of the first movers in the smart cities space, can you share your experience in trying to develop a ‘smart city’?
S. Narayan: The term ‘smart city’ was not popular when we began. In hindsight, we were a little too optimistic taking on a project of this magnitude in Lavasa – the first hill station to be developed post-Independence. Unlike others before it, which grew organically, we decided to plan for the end game. To become a 365-days economy a city has to be self sustaining where you can live, work, learn and play. HOK – our partner and one of the world’s leading master planners – has brought in the transit model where a dense city centre gives way to sparser radial growth.
In terms of operating the city, in addition to residents and commercial entities, we took note of the floating population as well as the municipal administration of the city. We integrated technology right from the start – Lavasa is probably the only city in the country where GIS mapping was done from Day One. Thinking of, and planning for, the ultimate stakeholder is the true success of a good developer or city. Infrastructure development – with no expectation of commercial returns – also became part of the project cost, which has made commercial viability more challenging. It could have been easier had we decided to compromise on some of these things.
BWSC: What are your thoughts on the government’s vision of 100 smart cities by 2022?
SN: Most of them are likely to be the conversion of existing cities into smart cities, which means the actual task becomes a little simpler. Some may be pure Greenfield cities requiring a huge amount of infrastructure support of individual components, be it water supply, power distribution, healthcare, hospitality or affordable housing. While all of this is independently called infrastructure, and qualifies for legal and fiscal benefits, a city developer is not given the status of an infrastructure developer but remains in the real estate category. This anomaly needs to go out of the system.
BWSC: Greenfield versus Brownfield: which one is easier? Is it easier to work with a clean state?
SN: If you are given a clean slate, with all the freedom to plan and execute something the way you would like to, it is always a little simpler, provided you have the necessary support from the environment at large. In the conversion of an existing city, you are inheriting a legacy that may constrain you. On the other hand, cities have their own behavioral patterns, their own persona. That is obviously a challenge. Still, an existing city already has infrastructural connectivity, and changes become incremental Lavasa – 50 kilometres from Pune – had almost nothing and needed a huge amount of investment upfront. One is not necessarily better than the other, as every city has to connect with others.
BWSC: No country has attempted anything like 100 smart cities. How realistic do you think the goal is?
SN: When we say we want to develop 100 smart cities, we are not saying that we want the city to max out in seven years or be saturated and done with. I think the intention of the government is that they want to walk down the path of 100 smart cities, to a reasonable extent in seven years. This is doable, provided you have sufficient resources and committed people. For argument’s sake, we would have to have 100 teams with each team working on a single city, to pull off 100 cities in seven years. So the issue is not whether we can build 100 cities in seven years, it is how best we can put these 100 teams together!
BWSC: What are some of the greatest strengths that India has going for it and how do we build on those? What kind of partnerships would we require?
SN: Every major infrastructure provider in this country needs to work with the government. Instead of criticising the government, we have to find a way of engaging with it. The government can’t do it alone, nor can the private sector. Visionary leadership and a conducive legal and financial environment will be crucial. We must also get citizens to support the vision and play a positive role instead of resisting change.
When we began at Lavasa, whatever basic comfort we planned to give the engineers and other constituents, we decided the same would be extended to the villagers in the valley. From treated drinking water to the best free education to healthcare and open town halls, we decided to provide the villagers access to these even before we started the major construction activity. So when we faced challenges on the environmental front, people actually stood up and spoke up for us. It’s a democratic setup, with a consultative and cooperative approach toward the locals.
BWSC: Were there some international examples or best practices that you wove into your plans when you started all those years ago?
SN: HOK brought with them the experience of doing this for a very long time across the world, with the distinct advantage of having worked in large and developing countries, including Philippines with challenges similar to India. Additionally, the parent company – being a large infrastructure company –did not compromise on quality, on the directions of our Chairman. Interestingly, a Mumbai-based buyer recently told me that for him the highlight at Lavasa was that he did not experience a single bump in the road, as compared to Mumbai where he can’t travel 100 metres without hitting one.
Also, you cannot go to Singapore or Canada and drink water from the tap, but here in Lavasa you can - whether you are a villager, visitor or a resident. Our citizen contact centre, via a single telephone number provides complete round-the-clock support for any kind of problem.
BWSC: Do you have a wish list for the government?
SN: Recognise city development as infrastructure and make long-term funding available to make cities commercially viable and culturally sustainable with high quality of life as the measurable parameter of success.
