MINUTES OF THE 1596th MEETING (ONLINE) OF THE DELHI URBAN ART COMMISSION (DUAC) HELD ON THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2021

A.   The minutes of the 1595th meeting (online) of the Delhi Urban Art Commission held on 03.06.2021 were confirmed and approved.

SL. No.PROPOSALOBSERVATIONS /SUGGESTIONSDECISIONREMARKS

B.ACTION TAKEN REPORT IN RESPECT OF MINUTES OF 1594TH MEETING HELD ON 27.05.2021.1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1594th meeting held on 27.05.2021 was discussed.Noted by the Commission.NA

C. PROJECT PROPOSALS:

1BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ON PLOT NO-5B, I.P. ESTATE, RING ROAD, NEW DELHI.1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on April 8, 2021, specific observations were given, and accepted the concept at its meeting held on April 22, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (demolishing the existing auditorium and proposing an academic block) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-16042127032 dated 27.04.2021 and following observations were given:

a) It was observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-16042127032 dated 27.04.2021 indicated at sr. no. 2 (b, d) inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b) On the suggestions of the Commission, the architect has made provisions for a cafeteria, seating arrangements, kitchen etc. on the western side of the stilt area in the conceptual submission, but the same is missing in the formal submission. Also, inconsistency observed in the submitted proposal, 3D views do not match with the plans which do not impart accurate depiction of the proposal. The same shall be revised, correlated with other relevant details and resubmitted.

c) The Ashoka emblem and the STATUE OF UNITY are symbols of national importance. These shall be used judiciously and shall not be considered as a work of art, as they portray the integrity and strength of our nation. Their placement, size and colour scheme shall be used with due respect to the original size and its design.

d) It is again reiterated that the cores shall be such designed that the toilets (male/female) are placed together in a single location, and both the lifts (two in number) are placed together at the same or another location for better functioning, usability, ease of access, and better efficiency. Though, the placement & location of staircases appear to be acceptable.

4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.
Not approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

2LAYOUT AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL IN RESPECT OF NEW CAMPUS OF DR B. R. AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY AT DHEERPUR.1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD (GNCTD) (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the layout & building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised layout and building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the phasing of the proposal, location and screening of the services, Geothermal arrangements of the site with a detailed energy statement, landscaping including street furniture arrangements throughout the site, uses under stilt areas in the residential blocks etc. While some of the observations made by the Commission earlier have been incorporated/complied with, some others could not be incorporated/complied with, on account of certain site conditions and constraints. Based on the detailed discussion held and revised scheme submitted along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-21032161005 dated 19.04.2021 and following observations were given:

a) The Commission appreciated the efforts made by the architect to revise the scheme to the extent possible. But, observed that project phasing has not been sufficiently elucidated in the submission. The same shall be marked appropriately in the master plan.

b) The Commission believes that considering the scale of the project, and the number of individual blocks of diverse uses/functions like auditorium block, admin block, library block, academic blocks, theatre cum convention block, sports block, multilevel car parking block, residential building type II & III, residential building type IV, V, VI, VII, hostel buildings (boys/girls), VVIP Guesthouse, etc. all these buildings shall have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, environmental, aesthetics of the campus. So need to be examined judiciously. Accordingly, the architect/proponent was suggested to consider putting up the proposals for approval in the following manner:

a. Master Plan of the entire scheme

b. Plans, Elevations, Sections and other details of Individual blocks.

c) But, the architect has submitted a combined submission (master plan of the entire site and the individual blocks). The Commission intends to consider every building block judiciously and again reiterated to submit the proposal for individual blocks in separate submissions along with appropriate details (plans/elevations/sections/3D views from various angles etc.) allowing the Commission to comment more specifically.

d) It was observed that it is tough to comprehend the scheme for individual blocks.

A. Master Planning

a) Tentative locations have been marked on the layout plan for ESS, HVAC plants, but, their details along with its screening mechanism have not been provided. Since, it would have an impact on the overall visual, environmental, and aesthetics of the campus, it was suggested to detail out its screening options using an appropriate architectural mechanism in cohesion with the proposed architectural elements/materials planned for the building blocks. The scheme shall be submitted with plans/elevations/3D views etc. as appropriate.

b) The architect shall submit a complete schematic plan marking the various services on the site, along with a diagram explaining its working.

c) A sustainability matrix on water requirements, energy consumption along with an energy distribution chart wherein various aspects like energy costing, lifecycle, green rating etc. shall be submitted along with the full life cycle matrix of the entire site. The details of the wastewater generated in the site, its treatment and overall saving, and usages need to be detailed. The architect shall furnish the details including total power requirements in the entire site, individual blocks power requirements, availability of raw power vis-à-vis power generated from sustainable sources along with the lifecycle cost of a sustainable source of power being used. Also, a comparative analysis for costing details of spaces used for air conditioning equipment`s/utilities and non-air-conditioned spaces to be furnished in the submission. The submission mentions the use of 2400KW power backup. The Commission would like to understand where this backup is envisaged to be used.

d) The carbon footprint of the site shall be calculated and mentioned to understand the impact of such a large-scale project on-site and its surroundings. The break-up of organic and inorganic waste to be given for the entire site.

e) Large congregational spaces like the auditorium, convention centre etc. to be supplemented by reference images/3d views to appreciate the scheme better.

f) The Ambedkar statue stands alone in the scheme. It shall be landscaped appropriately and the details of the same shall be submitted along with the scheme.

g) It was observed that the campus has four entry/exit gates of different sizes. Considering its bearing on the overall visual and aesthetics of the campus, it was accordingly suggested that appropriate details (including plan/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) of all gates in the site shall be submitted.

h) The parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e. it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. in each parking lot. The number of car parking in each block needs to be provided in the design scheme. Also, the layout needs to be reviewed and redesigned as the proposed layout has discrepancies (back-to-back parking) that need to be rectified.

i) The location of shops/café/utilities have been marked in the layout plan but, their details have not been provided. Since it has a bearing on the aesthetics of the campus, the same shall be supplemented with plans/elevations/sections/details/3D views etc. to comment upon by the Commission.

j) The provisions made for the work of art shall be planned keeping in mind the scale, material and significance in the form of Murals, sculptures, art & architecture etc. as appropriate, to make the campus spaces lively & inviting.

B. General Points for Individual blocks:

a) The individual blocks submitted cannot be examined in isolation. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory 3D views (at least 6 in numbers) for each block from various angles clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings shall be submitted. for a better understanding. For every block, the details of the surroundings i.e. Landscape interface (landscape details along with the building), porch details, pick-up/drop-off etc. to be given so as each block is appreciated by the Commission judiciously.

b) The screening mechanism of the solar panels on the terrace of all blocks to be given. The same to be depicted by clear sections and 3d views to explain their fixing, placement, termination details, and screening with appropriate architectural mechanisms etc. so that they do not mar the aesthetics.

c) The material application on the facades is unclear and needs to be explained by submitting annotated and labelled 3d views. Also, the skin sections (in detail with 3D views) shall be submitted to understand the material application on the façade. Jaali work on the façade wherever used extensively, a blow-up detail, including its fixing details, maintenance etc. shall be given to make it clearer.

d) The male/female toilets to be placed together wherever possible to achieve efficiency in functioning. Also, it would be easy for the users to navigate the toilets from the auditorium.

e) The area used under Stilt for residential block/hostel etc. has not been explained/detailed appropriately. It is suggested to utilise some of the space in stilts as community/social space for the users. A provision needs to be made for toilets and sitting area for maids/guards/drivers in the stilt area.

f) Air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units in the residential blocks/hostels etc. at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

g) In the residential/hostel blocks balconies shall be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission & make a separate submission for the individual blocks supplemented along with appropriate details (plans/elevations/sections/3D views from various angles etc.) allowing the Commission to comprehend the scheme better & examine judiciously and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.
Only The Master plan is approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

3BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL IN RESPECT OF GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AT SECTOR 27, ROHINI.1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
  
2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations were given:
  
a) The site planning has not been done resourcefully. The ground coverage, FAR etc. shall be used judiciously taking into consideration the future requirements of the site including parking provisions. 
 
b) Overall site planning of the site has to be made self-explanatory i.e., the movement and circulation in the site, connections from outside the site etc. The submitted proposal lacks a guided movement plan. The various functions in the site including road network, parking along with students` playground area etc. has not been done thoughtfully, needs reconsideration.  

c) Overall blocking of the site is not correct, students have to cross the administration block to access the playground, the access to which is choked due to the presence of a parking lot, and needs reconsideration. The blocks shall be designed to avoid pedestrian and vehicular conflict for the safety of users (students).
  
d) The placement of parking arrangements made was not appreciated by the Commission. The students of varied age groups are the primary users but, the site seems to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian-friendly. Parking is placed haphazardly all over the site. Alternative options, including basement, shall be explored to relocate/remove the surface parking and freed up surfaces be used judiciously. Road network shall be minimised by appropriate planning to avoid the heat island effect.
 
e) Zoning shall be such that administrative areas and the classrooms shall have visual access to the available greens. 
 
f) An appropriate number of arrangements for lifts shall be made for the mobility of differently-abled students/teachers etc. 
 
g) Also, detailed skin sections shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.  

h) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but we can preplan for potential additions in future including the administrative areas, principal rooms etc. which could be using separate air-conditioning units. Air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.  

i) The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same is missing in the submission. The gate and the boundary wall details, including plans/elevations/sections/3D views, as appropriate shall be provided.  

j) The work of art is missing in the submission. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from the outside, to be installed.  

k) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans. Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.  

l) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org using the same architectural elements and materials.
  
3. The architect was advised, to re-design/re-look at the zoning of the site, with a fresh approach, taking into consideration the future requirements of the proposal including parking, play areas for students, Signage, Landscape greens etc. for best utilisation of the available space, and adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.
Not approved, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

4BUILDING PLANS PROPOSAL IN RESPECT OF LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE AT BLOCK-E, SECTOR-18, ROHINI. (CONCEPTUAL STAGE)1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.  

2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 21, 2021, specific observations were given.  

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the air-conditioning system used, screening of services etc. Based on the detailed discussion held and revised scheme submitted along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18052127036 dated 25.05.2021 and following observations were given:  

a) During a detailed discussion (online) held with the architect, it was informed that individual shop owners would use individual air-conditioning systems. No provision has been made in the design for the screening of outdoor air-conditioning units hanging outside the shops. The presence of so many individual outdoor air-conditioning units would spoil the visual, urban, environmental, and aesthetics of the complex.  

b) The Commission opines that the presence of so many air-conditioning units would be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics, and it shall be ensured that the pipes are appropriately screened so that they are not exposed to the outer façade. A scheme (with three options) needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.  

c) The entry/exits shall have markings on the floors for efficient navigation.  

d) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans. Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views.  

4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and submit at least three options to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the outdoor air-conditioning units in plans/elevations and 3d views and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.
The concept of the proposal is not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

5BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL IN RESPECT OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AT SETBARI. (CONCEPTUAL STAGE)1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.  

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations were given:  

a) The site planning has not been done resourcefully. The ground coverage, FAR etc. shall be used judiciously taking into consideration the futuristic requirements of the site including parking provisions.  

b) Sections were missing in the submission. An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.  

c) Overall site planning of the site has to be made self-explanatory i.e., the movement and circulation in the site, connections from outside the site etc. The submitted proposal lacks a guided movement plan. The various functions in the site including road network, parking along with students` playground area etc. has not been done thoughtfully, needs reconsideration.  

d) The placement of parking arrangements made was not appreciated by the Commission. Parking has been placed haphazardly without much thought, wasting huge surface area. Parking provisions made in the front setback, near the entrances to the school shall be reconsidered & relocated elsewhere. Instead, use this area for landscaping. Alternative options, including basement, shall be explored to relocate/remove the surface parking and the freed-up surfaces are to be used judiciously. Road network shall be minimised by appropriate planning to avoid the heat island effect.  

e) The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, a detailed section complete in all respect shall be provided including DPC, fixing of the grill, material applications etc.  

f) The work of art is missing in the submission. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from the outside, to be installed.  

g) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans. Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.  

h) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org using the same architectural elements and materials.  

3. The architect was advised to explore options to relocate the parking provisions of the site taking into consideration the futuristic requirements including parking, play areas for students, Signage, Landscape greens etc. for best utilisation of the available space, and adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.
The concept of the proposal not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

6LAYOUT AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF STAFF HOUSING COMPLEX FOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF IMMUNOLOGY, DWARKA. (CONCEPTUAL STAGE)1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission. 

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the air-conditioning system used, relocation of car parking to the basement, screening of services etc. Based on the conceptual submission received and the discussion held following observations were given:  

a) It was observed that the location of the ESS, STP, UGT, pump room, DG set, solar street lights, guard room etc. have been indicated in the layout plan but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban and aesthetic quality of the complex, accordingly, the submission shall be revised and resubmitted.  

b) The Commission observed that zoning and the planning for the complex have been done without considering future expansion and requirements including parking etc. This design approach might alter later and mar the aesthetics of the area by creating avoidable limitations.  

c) The basement has been created under Blocks 1A and 1B to accommodate car parking but, a lot of surface parking has also been provided. It was suggested to explore the possibility of extending the basement further to accommodate surface parking in the basement. The freed-up spaces can be put to judicious use including greens which would help enhance the visual, urban, aesthetic quality of the complex.  

d) The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall visual, aesthetics of the complex. The details of the same shall be submitted including detailed sections and 3d views.  

e) Exposed air-conditioner units could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made in the design to accommodate potential future addition of outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics.  

f) The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.  

g) The entrance of the building needs to be redesigned. It shall be replaced with a better design of the porch using appropriate architectural elements. It needs to be modified and made prominent and appropriate to the building scale.  

h) The work of art is missing in the submission. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from the outside, to be installed.  

i) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.  

j) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org using the same architectural elements and materials.  

3. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.
The concept of the proposal not accepted, observations given.The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

The following were present at the Meeting (online) of the Commission held on Thursday, June 10, 2021, from 02.30 PM onwards:

1. Shri Ajit Pai, Chairman, DUAC
2. Prof. (Dr) Mandeep Singh, Member, DUAC
3. Shri Ashutosh Agarwal, Member, DUAC
4. Smt. Nivedita Pande, Member, DUAC