As airport roofs and bridges collapse, so do India’s claims of ‘world-class’ infrastructure

First, the managerially-coined term “world-class” implies a level of prestige, admiration and aspiration. To be sure, the drive for cities to become world-class was seeded post economic liberalisation in the 1990s in India, when new global capital quickly translated into iconic images of large-scale IT parks, malls, multiplexes, enclaved complexes and BPOs within our urban environment. The implant of such once-alien building typologies has meant significant disregard of local environmental realities. Not only do they aggressively alter the natural terrain and topography of a place, they are also inward-looking, energy-intensive structures that drain resources at a greater rate. Even if these were accepted as the need of the hour, how do we justify their quick failures?

The quick failure of mega infrastructure may be studied across several dimensions — political, technological and environmental. To a large extent, these failures are attributed to the municipal authorities, private players or the government. However, none of these work in isolation and are mutually dependent in city processes. Respective stakeholders must be responsible in assuring safety by means of regular checks. Structural engineers and architects work through a principle of “factor of safety” that accommodates the maximum forces incident upon a building system within the strength of the material used. The collapse of airport roofs from heavy rain and the leakage of seawater into the recently inaugurated underpass in Mumbai hint at the understudied performance of materials to the specific environmental contexts in which they are used. And these contexts themselves are in flux due to climate change.

If becoming “world-class” is the aim, then these failures hint that our newly built mega infrastructure is an image-building exercise: The quality of performance and expectation of high design standards — those that encapsulate the spirit of such a title — seem to have been compromised for quick recognition. For a long time, development has been reduced to match a “global” image that can be conveniently projected and circulated within portfolios, while little work is undertaken in assessing performance and conducting post-occupancy analysis to maintain the smooth and safe functioning of these services over time. Structures created to match a borrowed image largely using borrowed technology can only offer hollow satisfaction of attaining the “world-class” dream. Moreover, physical provisions need to be strengthened with “soft infrastructures” of people and technology such that they are internally robust and efficient.

As much as we need these new infrastructure to connect and thrive, we may want to redefine “world-class” for ourselves. Three decades down the path of economic liberalisation, the repeated technological and social failures of iconic urban structures is disappointing. It also ill-serves our environmental context or the behaviour of our people.

How does one reconcile the notion of “world-class” infrastructure in the wake of climate change? Could the technologies of becoming world-class be resuscitated to maintain environmental and social relationships that dignify the diversity of lives within our cities, rather than submitting to the homogenising image of capital? It is time that we build internal capacities to address city-building issues.

The writer is Assistant Professor at the School of Environment and Architecture, Mumbai