1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:
a. The proposal has been submitted for building plans proposal in respect of Multi-Level Car Parking at the formal stage. But the architect has submitted a project report with the following title:
“…..Upgradation of District Centre at Nehru Place and construction of MLCP…. With refurbishment and overall improvement with…
i. Plaza & Amphitheatre
ii. Parking and landscaping
iii. Traffic circulation
iv. Accessibility & ease of movement
v. Public facilities………Including proposal for a skywalk, lifts and escalators for skywalk, park, plaza seating, 12 toilet blocks, ola/uber taxi drop points, improvement of existing staircases etc… ”
It is evident that there is inconsistency, as the title of the proposal and the submitted design scheme do not match each other, hence needs clarification and corrected/correlated design scheme shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.
b. The Commission observed that the proposal is set at an important location in Delhi and opines that it cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the proposal shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.
c. Also, the proposal being of a large scale and situated in an important surrounding context needs to be examined carefully, in a detailed manner so as it can be used as a case example for future developments of District Centres in the city. Thus, all aspects of urban, environmental, visual and aesthetics are to be considered for examining.
d. Considering the scale and size of the proposal an extensive number of photographs of the existing development of the site shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides. An appropriate number of annotated site photographs clearly showing the existing site conditions, including existing buildings on the site, be given to understand the extent and the type of existing construction.
e. An appropriate number of 3-d views/elevations/sections for all blocks including parking, MLCP, plazas, amphitheatre, common areas, staircases, toilet blocks, services etc. (from all angles), to be provided, so that the scheme can be appreciated by the Commission. The views should be set in the existing surrounding to provide detail and clarity.
f. The Commission observed that the overall façade of the existing buildings is in a dilapidated condition. From the upgradation design scheme submitted it is not clear whether these areas are also considered in the upgradation scheme. All modifications in the design including facade Upliftment, additional architectural elements, features etc. in all buildings shall be supplemented in the design scheme. Along with the details of the façade including material, form, colour, architectural elements to be given for all individual blocks as the existing buildings are very old and have varied characters. As the proposal mentions refurbishment, the above-mentioned details shall be provided for efficient examination.
g. The outdoor air conditioners are protruding out all over the façade of the existing buildings spoiling the visual and aesthetics of the complex. To avoid the same, provisions shall be made to accommodate the outdoor units appropriately 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.
h. An appropriate number of site sections (end to end of the proposed scheme) be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.
i. Seamless pedestrian movement shall be ensured throughout the site, which shall be linked to all parts of the complex (internal and external). A combined mobility plan showing a seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various parts of the district centre to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement. All details shall be marked clearly on respective layout plans. 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.
j. Space for informal vendors to be clearly marked in the respective layout plan. Details of street furniture and supporting facilities are to be provided so as to explain the scheme better.
k. It was observed that a total of 12 public toilets, a skywalk, lifts and escalators for skywalk, park, plaza seating, 12 toilet blocks, ola/uber taxi drop points, improvement of existing staircases etc. have been proposed and are also part of the formal submission 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. The same is to be revised appropriately and be incorporated for review by the Commission.
l. Details of the proposed skywalks including details of entry/exit points, covering details, other street furniture inside the skywalk etc. to be supplemented in the proposal.
m. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location/screening on the site plan shall be submitted.
n. A signage policy shall be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity and enable facade control. Proper signages are to be provided throughout the site at various locations to ensure proper wayfinding.
o. The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency with the appropriate use of the solar panels on building rooftops etc. and screen them by using appropriate architectural mechanisms. 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. 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.in.
p. A public art zoning plan is ensured which indicates the placement of all work of Art in the site as per its context, location etc. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from outside, to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
q. Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. They shall indicate the details of the trees planted, types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
r. All plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and service equipment including DG Set, its exhaust pipe, generator, ESS etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.
3. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal being submitted for the formal stage needs to be complete and comprehensive. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.
4. The architect is advised to revise the submission adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission and submit a complete revised submission (with complete drawings/documentation etc.) for the consideration of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.