Missing icons of modern India: Indian Metro design lacks iconic intensity

Subharthi Guha

India will continue to be a developing country even in the 22nd century unless we find a framework to move beyond the process hiring designers through contract bids rather than design evaluation, for the latter is best for long term national interest. Developing countries cannot afford substandard work, as it requires frequent makeovers and upgrades that make it financially unsustainable in the long term.

One of the largest developments in India today has been the injection of Metro into our cities and daily life. It isn』t beyond comprehension that Indian metro stations lack Iconicity at a world stage when compared to Moscow metro that opened far back in 1935, the Jubilee line and cross rail station in London in the '90s, and the contemporary Riyadh metro stations under construction. India's first introduction of Metro in Calcutta was way back in 1984. While we experience the latest Delhi metro and looking further beyond the plans for Bombay, Jaipur and other cities, there is an inevitable lack of iconic intensity. This cannot be overlooked whilst crores of rupees per sq km are spent on these networks. One cannot help but ask if this is just because we are a developing nation and do not have enough funds to leave a footprint of our existence or are we lacking quality designers or do selection policies need a relook?

Civilisations are recognised with the footprint they leave behind.  These footprints arise by catering the contemporary needs of the society. They range from the Pyramids in Egypt, the Skyscrapers in Manhattan or the landmark towers of Dubai.

Metro systems today do the same in contemporary cities - they cater to the need of the people, connecting the fast paced job rushers to work and back. The Moscow metro defines itself as 『the palaces for people』 and indeed they are with wide platforms, deep underground plazas, gigantic chandeliers and every stations design different from the next. It gives a hint of social effort from the government towards its people, quite similar to what the Jubilee line and Cross-rail station at Canary Warf does for London or the new KAFD station for development of Riyadh.

India has many footprints in its past, the forts of the Mughals and Havelis of Rajput kings, the Temples, Mosques, Stupas... If anyone would suggest that we do not possess artistic talents to deliver such structures in an era where we hold the largest youth population, one would certainly question that theory. The fact remains we have produced no iconic buildings with massive investments during the commonwealth games when compared to a time when India was poorer economically in the Asiad games, we delivered IG Stadium and other iconic towers. So for a true patriot contributing towards national wealth, the inevitable question is, what went wrong?

As construction industry boomed in India from the '90s, the selection system for a designer became more and more stringent. Unlike Europe in the '90s that opened up avenues by holding design competitions, India introduced the selection of architects similar to the contractor hiring approach. The criteria’s such as L1 (where the lowest quote wins), L2 (where the second to lowest wins), techno-commercial evaluations (where technical & financial bid percentage is judged), T1 T2 and T3 (technical grounds only), the Swiss challenge (tenders are floated after the contract) and so on remain key hiring processes for designers in public buildings. As much as these seem very logical to hire contractors for the job, none of these ask for design ideas. This has made new designs obsolete as bidders do not see the need to produce one to win a contract.

Further, it has led to contractors pitching for designer’s projects where they hire the architect themselves and the whole exercise is finance oriented rather than design. Leaving no choice for the architect to apply for L1 contracts quoting as low as 0.5 percent of project fees where Council of architecture suggests a min of 2 percent limit. There is no way the designer can run an office in such low percentage or afford to pay its staff, hence they turn to feeding from the suppliers. The suppliers in turn delivers sub-standard material to meet his selling target and commissions and the chain continues. If you look around, you will realise that we lack quality design in infrastructure and services is a result of such a process because government agencies have to go through a process of tendering and many a times the lowest bidder wins the contract to justify 『transparency of the process』.

We, as members of the public, often criticize and at times just choose to ignore. The latter is the ultimate sign of despair in a country, not its GDP numbers. The sign of lack of pride in anything built with public money today indicates the requirement of change of selection criteria and standards. And to break the shackles of substandard work in India one needs to change the way designers are hired for projects to any meaningful brown field development. Else, the short sighted approach causes damage to the society that are often beyond comprehension in the long term and highly unsustainable. It is clear that the lifecycle cost of anything bought under the lowest bid process is always higher than the best that could be bought at a reasonable price at the time.

A developing country cannot afford high maintenance and repeated upgrades just to keep its 『wheels in motion』. So the next time we think of growth, one must think of long term growth. The country needs hope, more than anything else. And public infrastructures that are commonly used by people on a daily basis, are the biggest of opportunities presented to us today, whilst the economy is growing and cities are being upgraded. Once done, they would either be another disappointment or the pride of a nation. Of course, the choice remains ours to make.

本文來源：https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/real-estate/missing-icons-of-modern-india-indian-metro-design-lacks-iconic-intensity-2554133.html