In late 1950’s and the beginning of 1960’s, India was going through a process of

establishing a new future for a nation based on the Nehruvian ideologies of establishing

urban centers as engines of growth as well as an image of a new modern emerging

India. Apart from the city level exercises like Chandigarh, there was also a major drive to

plan different parts of existing cities too. In Delhi, areas like R K Puram, Kidwai Nagar,

INA etc. were planned to house large population. These exercises were based on the

modern planning principles and hence huge instantaneous developments unlike the

piecemeal growth of the traditional cities took place. Such a development led to many

urban voids2 in the planned areas, there were areas that became un/under-utilized,

inviting squatters and/or local dump yards and some became the backyards of the

development. Motor vehicle being the key determinant for the plan has also led to certain

urban voids, which are in general not perceived as backyards; sides of the wide roads or

the parking lots in front of the building, or the setback land which lies behind the high

walls. There are different layers to the formation of the urban voids and hence to its self-

adaptable nature to adjust itself according to the surroundings. Now after more than 50

years of this development, the buildings have outlived its use and are up for

redevelopment with new land pressures from the growth of the city. At this point it is very

essential to understand the anatomy of urban voids, so that the redevelopment could

have a different vision, as Einstein said “We can't solve problems by using the same kind

of thinking we used when we created them”

Indian urbanism has always revolved around shared spaces, be it the shared chaupal in

the villages, which become the main activity hub, almost functionally equivalent to the

Greek agora; or the maidaans of a city which is shared by different users for diverse

functions spread over time, reflecting almost the entire city; or the ghats along the rivers

which becomes a play ground, a temple, a market place, a resting garden and many

more all at the same time.

A shared space is converse of what an urban void is. Void ~ being without; when used as

„urban void‟ refers to being without permeability (both social and physical) and being

without a public realm. A void is a physical entity that is perceived as a no-man‟s land

contrary to the notion of the shared space which is everyone‟s land. The definition of both

2 The voids of the city are spaces which disrupt the urban tissue, leaving it incomplete and throw into question the

use of those spaces. Sometimes called urban ruins, they are at the limit between private and public space, without belonging either to the one or to the other. (6)

urban voids and shared spaces are scale dependent, of what is a shared space at one

scale may become an urban void at another scale; e.g. a slum is a shared space with

great internal permeability and public realm, but at an area level the same slum becomes

an urban void because it hinders permeability and the public realm at an area level, and

act as a ghetto.

Urban void and shared space may seem like a dichotomous terms, but they overlap, a

void can have a shared space within itself and vice-versa because of the scale function,

as Bernardo Secchi in his book For a town-planning of open spaces (1993) bring up, in

the sprawled settlement pattern typical to the postwar era, in which “the cities and the

territories have become immense collection of objects tactically placed next to one

another, mute”. The missing links of inept definition in these areas are the reflection of a

“decomposed contemporary society” in which “the space „in-between things‟, between

objects and subjects, between my house and my neighbor‟s, between their office and

mine, is traversed by many strangers, and is not a meeting place, it has become „empty‟

because it plays no recognizable role.”

It is high time that we should now explore different voids at different scales and suggests

urban design solutions to translate them to shared spaces, by which the redevelopment

could be informed. “…urban voids present new opportunities for developing ambiguous

and dynamic relationships. This blurring of public and private realms, of cultural and

commercial zones, overturns the modern urban project with its desire to create distinct

mono functional territories, but to no great purpose. Such fragmentary productions rest

on a peculiar echo of the traditional strategy of urban beautification where to be at the

centre might now mean to be at the edge. In contrast to this council of despair, it is

therefore necessary to refine how a city might be made so its citizens are able to

comprehend and be accommodated by the environment in which they are expected to

live.” (2) Sharing the urban voids will lead to urban systems that will define the future

development.

2.1 Creation of Urban Void