Subik Kumar Shrestha/Kansas State University Spring 2014

1

Inquiry of the areas around River Bagmati: Urban plan-ning and design initiatives for the riverfront developments along Tripureshwore-Teku stretch

Executive Summary River Bagmati and the associated riverfront developments form a large portion of Kathmandu’s urban fabric. Growing concerns regarding the improvement of the condition of River Bagmati of the Kathmandu Valley however, are focused mostly on issues of water pollution. The evident state of the river especially around the core areas portray the dire condition of the river and how it is affecting the human settlements. Although the matter of pollution is undoubtedly severe and needs immediate attention, a study on the potential of culturally gifted riverfront spaces also needs proper planning. In addition to being sites of socio-cultural and religious importance, these spaces can be developed as vibrant urban public place within the crammed Kathmandu. But there are different problems within such spaces apart from the pollution of the river which needs solution be-fore urban planning and design initiatives can be implemented. In this re-gard planners, designers, developers, and other authorities have to: (1) face the attitude of the nearby residents regarding intervention; (2) make deci-sions regarding encroachment of the flood plains and riverfront areas; (3) address the immediate need for conservation; (4) revise the reasons behind inability of planning departments to make decisions; and (5) try to solve the dilemma among public and private organizations. This paper explores the urban planning issues that need to be addressed before further develop-ment agendas are proposed. More specifically, the planning case has been explored with special attention to the key actors involved and their roles. In addition, the key dilemmas have also been studied and the paper finally attempts to arrive at solutions and provide recommendations.

Background and Introduction It is not a newly discovered fact that the holy River Bagmati is suffering from pollution and decades of neglect (figure 1). The pollution has not only brought destruction to the river but has aided to improper develop-ments in the riverfront spaces as well. According to the Bagmati Action Plan (Astra Development Network, 2008, p. 4), the river is currently used for different purposes, including: (1) the major sources for municipal, in-dustrial, and irrigation water for Kathmandu valley; (2) cultural and reli-gious practices; (3) disposal of water borne effluent and deposition of solid waste along the banks; (4) extraction of sand; (5) spaces for public infra-structures, for example roads and water tanks; and (6) preferred zones for squatters and other encroachments. The authors also argue that there is a serious lack of planning, regulations, enforcement, and implementation of appropriate and effective programs. These assertions about the river being used for different unethical purposes need appreciation and serious consid-eration as it has been made evident by the ill-state of the river and river-front spaces. The area of study for this paper is the southern riverfront stretch of around

1200 feet starting from the Thapathali Bridge and going westwards cover-

ing an area of roughly 600,000 sq. feet (figure 3). The northern stretch

runs almost parallel to the main city road and the entire area of this study

lies within the border of Tripureshwore. The riverfront spaces have the

potential of being developed into a traditional urban place in the midst of a

crowded urban city. The bridge that connects Kathmandu and Lalitpur is

one of the most important constructions of modern Kathmandu which can

play a major role in connecting different communities from the two dis-

tricts. The site is a busy part of Kathmandu city on the intersection of dif-

ferent communities surrounding it from all directions. The major objective

of this planning case is to make people aware of the forgotten cultural

spaces, make it vibrant and usable, and increase awareness about the river.

The city is in need of such a culturally important site where people can

congregate. Considering its prime location, it has the potential to attract

many people from all directions.

Figure 1– Views of the studied area from Teku-

Thapathali bridge (above- 1880s, below– 1950s;

sc. Wikipedia).

Figure 2– River Bagmati within the Kathmandu

Valley seen as narrow blue network in the image

(sc. Google Maps).

Subik Kumar Shrestha/Kansas State University Spring 2014

2

Figure 3– Google earth image of the larger urban fabric and the site considered highlighted in red.

Figure 4– The site illustrated to portray the spatial configuration (sc. The author).

Subik Kumar Shrestha/Kansas State University Spring 2014

3

River Bagmati planning case An evident problem with this particular planning case is that the residents who live nearby and other citizens do not have special ad-miration to the river even though it has reached an alarming stage. The riverfront spaces were of cultural value in the past but current-ly have been either misused, unused, or underused if used at all. Many identifiable religious and cultural places exist along the stretch but are rarely used by the residents (figure 4). One of the issues is to understand the factors that is stopping people from considering these riverfront spaces as places for visit. The assumption made is that if this space can once again be made a vibrant public space through proper development strategies, people will be concerned about the river and it would trigger the river cleaning campaign in a more serious way. This planning strategy can be taken as an alternate solution to attaining urban cohesion in different parts of the Kathmandu Valley as well, since riverfront spaces with similar problems are present in many places of the capital. The major reason behind this similarity is because many areas of the valley are connected via the network of River Bagmati leading to similar urban developments along those riverfronts (figure 2).

Key actors and their roles in the planning case This planning case is based in public domain since it is not a case which is of profit to private investors and the direct advantage of this project is to the public themselves. The location of site is such that it can attract people from varying communities that surround it. The key actors from the public sector could be the Ward Office and Guthi Sansthan (the trust) whereas Boy’s Union Club needs to act as a private organization. The key professionals that need to take part in the planning process are the architects, urban designers, planners, and conservation specialists. Considering the nature of the project, which is to revitalize the riverfront spaces through dif-ferent possible means, the major planning decision should be executed by the Guthi Sansthan under the supervision of planner/architect/conservationist. This case will not benefit much from private investors since the government will not allow any outside in-vestor to hold a foot in this project considering the number of cultural heritages present and the site being a sacred riverfront. Established in 1952, the Boy’s Union Club is a recognized private organization (known popularly as a football club) that can create impact in this planning case although the club won’t act as a financial investor. Since its establishment, the club has also been in-volved in many community activities like collection of donation within the community in a hope of sustaining themselves as an ac-tive football club, manage volunteers for organization of festivals, and work with community in river cleaning efforts. However, the club can be involved in planning decisions and be even more active than it presently is. One of the main reasons that the club needs to be considered is because they are well-known in the community and being such an old club they have a good reputation there. The Guthi Sansthan (trust) is a public organization but is not independent like the ward office. It will only be able to work under pub-lic-private partnership (PPP). The organization owns lands donated in the past by the rich and the revenue generated from the land will help it carry different functions related with the community. Considering this introduction, it is clear that Guthi Sansthan can work properly only through collaboration with the community. Sagalyn describes Public-Private Partnership as being ‘controversial’ and argues that PPP approach shifts the focus from the conventional adversarial relationship between sectors to addressing and solv-ing problems based on mutually reinforcing relationships fostered by an alignment of interests (Sanyal, 2012, p. 233). However, the trend of donating land has stopped along with the power it possessed since the late twentieth century. But it has the potential to make a larger impact with the support of the public. This organization owns the eastern half of the site and might have funds or at least a connection to manage funds from international organizations like the World Bank to initiate the repairing of temple complexes and their vicinity. Although a ward office controls whole of its designated ward, special attentions should be given to areas along the riverfront as it contains cultural heritage of high importance (figure 5). Considering the fact that Kathmandu does not have a history of urban plan-ning projects initiated by the private sector, the ward office is a powerful governmental organization chiefly responsible for almost all of the planning activities in its designated ward. Considering the power of control over planning decision, the ward office will be the strongest as it has direct relation with Kathmandu municipality.

Figure 5– Chart of Potential key actors involved.

Subik Kumar Shrestha/Kansas State University Spring 2014

4

Key dilemmas One of the key dilemmas in this particular planning case for revitalization of Bagmati riverfront spaces is that it lacks the idea of collective action and public welfare. A large portion of the public is not sure of how they can benefit from the river (if they want anything at all). Hopkins (2001) has listed that planners sometimes wish to make plans for neither private decision makers not politi-cians, but rather from some “public interest” of their own creation (Hopkins, 2001, p. 170). The author further adds that such plans need collective choice and participation. This planning case requires a similar innovative path to be followed by the planner. A small difference between this case and what Hopkins refers to is that a genuine public interest with concern to the river has not been real-ized. Clearly, the cleaning of river has been seen as the major issue but not much thought has been put into to make most of the un-derutilized riverfront spaces. It should be understood that from a perspective of common welfare, the riverfront spaces are equally important to saving the legacy, culture, and history of the river itself. A generation (nearly 30 years) has passed since the river and surrounding spaces started to go through these dire straits. A new problem is that the young generation seems to know about the potential of riverfront spaces to an even lesser extent. The temple complexes are of architectural, religious, and cultural significance and offer a rich public space on both its courtyards and on its vicinity. But they have got problems of their own. Here are few of the reasons why people do not visit the place in the present scenario: 1. The foul smell of the river is very uninviting; 2. Majority of the places have been settled by the gurus who have rendered the place uncomfortable to visit and with whom the

residents don’t want to be acquainted; 3. The religious structures are in a state of ruin and thus have lost their significance in the eyes of the public; and 4. The pathways are unpleasant to walk and visit because of the issues of visual aesthetics and sanitation. There are many decisions that will not be taken positively by the people who currently shelter in the temple complexes and buildings along the edge of the river. The temple complexes at the present stage are being inhabited by the gurus who look after the spaces. However, in the name of looking after the place, many people have settled illegally in the area and thus these spaces do not seem to be inviting to the residents. In turn, they have rendered the place unfavorable to the public for longer stays due to their slum-like liv-ing style. It can be asserted that the spaces are now more or less privately owned by the gurus. This part of the city specifically should not contain a slum-like space because it is hindering many of these possibilities unique to the area.

Rendering solution via planning theories This planning case needs a pragmatic rationality approach considering that it has so many obstacles that demand foresight and intelli-gence to resolve (Brooks, 2002, p. 82). The six steps of planning in a pragmatically rational manner (ibid, p. 83) are inspiring and this planning case could be tackled with a similar approach. The planning case can be approached by following a rational model since it follows a certain direction starting with the problem, then setting a goal, predicting performance, and taking subtle decisions that one may encounter. The support of the residents living in the nearby community and the local organizations that are active there together will play a big role in the success of this plan. They need to work together for social and economic benefit of the community. It needs to be a holis-tic rather than incremental approach since the larger picture and its consequences on the bigger urban fabric are clearer presently. However, it is still not guaranteed that people will visit the spaces even after they are well maintained since the attitude of the people towards these spaces have changed so dramatically and it takes time for that faith to be restored. But it does not mean that the spaces don't deserve cultural revitalization. The larger concern is about inspiring a movement to supply the city with visit-able riverfront public spaces which it lacks and desperately needs. Following Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem (Hopkins, p. 173), a neglected yet important thought needs major attention. Among the four conditions that Arrows argues which cannot be fulfilled in any social setting, two of them can be related with this planning case. The two conditions are: (1) collective rationality (in any given set of individual preferences the social preferences are derivable from the individual preferences) and (2) non-dictatorship (there is no individual whose preferences are automatically socie-ty’s preferences, independent of the preferences of other individuals). In another account, Michael Brooks also addresses the theorem stating that “the attempt to pass from individual to social preferences is impossible in most situations…” (Brooks, p. 56). Although at present the river cleaning is the only issue that forms individual preference, the larger societal preference needs to be both the river cleaning and making the riverfront spaces usable; neither of which cannot be separated. But as the impossibility theorem suggests, it is surprising yet true that the unrealized preference of the society is different from individual preferences. In the current scenario, if a random local citizen is asked of their prediction of the future after the river gets clean, he/she is likely to express the opinion that all other social problems related to the river will solve on its own if the river is somehow cleaned. However, this cannot be considered to be necessarily true. The issue requiring focus is that we don’t need to wait till the end of time for the river to be clean, revitalizing riverfront spaces can go side by side as well. Bagmati Action Plan has clearly addressed a similar issue regarding the river as well (Bagmati Action Plan, 2008, p. 4). It expresses disappointment to the fact that the archaeological and historical riverfront sites are not getting effective protection and management. According to the authors, many riverfronts have been encroached permanently for private residence, schools, offices, business com-plex, squatter settlements, public toilets, new temples and road construction (ibid, p. 26). They even state that riverside lands are very important to maintain river ecosystem as well the aesthetic value of rivers and their surroundings (ibid, p. 25). These thoughts help to strengthen the arguments in that they also address the problem of riverfront spaces being misused.

Subik Kumar Shrestha/Kansas State University Spring 2014

5

Recommendations There are various issues which need prioritization and serious consideration. First of all, it needs to be well understood that the indi-vidual preference of general public cannot be changed in a short time. What can be done is that a better riverfront space can be pro-vided for them to enjoy and be a part of. This will increase the “popularity” of the river and generate awareness as well. The plan-ning case needs conservation strategies to restore the temple complexes which are under ruin. Also, it lacks a clean and clear pedes-trian route, the track of which was traditionally laid only to be deteriorated in the present time. Although giving design recommendations is not within the scope of this paper, the following spaces present in the site can enhance sociability: 1. The temple complexes and courtyards; 2. Edge of the buildings and continuous steps on the bank that face the river; 3. Plinths of many individual temples found along the site; and 4. Chunks of open spaces on the edge of the temple complexes. Once it has been realized that there is a need of such sociable space in urban Kathmandu, the next step will be to explore possible ways in which those spaces can be effectively provided, device alternatives that follow, and begin to find out the role of governmen-tal organizations that can play a part. The flood plains need to be respected considering that it is a riverfront area and being optimis-tic that the narrow river might reach to its full flow soon. The steps on the banks of the river should be reintroduced and maintained so that people can once again use those social spaces like in the recent past. The present bulk of green space on the southern edge is actually a result of the drying of the river. Presently, some structures have been established by UN Park administration (figure 8). Such constructions on the original flood plain cannot be considered legal and should be controlled.

Figure 7– Open spaces within the studied area

Figure 6– Chart of the planning intervention.

Subik Kumar Shrestha/Kansas State University Spring 2014

6

Conclusion It needs to be understood that this planning case will not be easy to execute even if all the actors get recog-nized and we make an assumption that the different bodies function properly. Issues of land ownership and rights, intervention from organizations concerning the conservation of cultural heritage, financial restrictions, and conflict with the residents of temple complexes are bound to rise. It might be taken as a case in which every actor would want things done their way. Howev-er, the only driving force that would unite the actors involved is that if these spaces are revitalization, it will be beneficial to the sustenance of the river itself in the long run not only along the site studied but along riverfront of the entire Kathmandu Valley. The success of this planning case may not guarantee a victory in the form of a clean river, but it will surely give a new dimension toward understanding the potential of the riverfront spaces which are networked all over large portions of the capital city, most of which have prob-lems common to this planning case.

References

Astra Development Network Pvt. Ltd. (2008) Geo Spatial Systems Pvt. Ltd, Innovative Solution Pvt. Ltd, Bagmati Action Plan(2009-2014).

Brooks, Michael P. (2002) Planning Theory for Practitioners. Amer Planning Association. Hopkins, L. D. (2001) Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans. Island Press. John Sanday Consultants (1994) The Teku-Thapathali Research Group Report. Kathmandu. Sanyal, B., Lawrence J., and Christina R. (2012) Planning Ideas that Matter: Livability, Territoriality, Governance, and Reflective

Practice. MIT Press. Internet source: Administrator, Guthi -Social System, - Last Updated Tuesday, 29 October 2013, http://www.guthisansthan.org.np

Figure 8– Encroachment of the river bank