talking about the rules that the government imposed in Manhattan in 1975, you had a bonus of 10 square meters per square meter of public equipment or open spaces provided.

NG: It was a rule but the article also states the absence of deep regulatory framework. The city
has a large number of ‘open spaces’ that are barren and have no event or use.

TN: They realised that and they added some definitions of what is urban quality and what is an open space.

SN: We have some frameworks like that here in India as well. The problem may be in implementa- tion. I know that outside of the BMRDA zone you have to create 10% of open space that is sup- posed to be given back to the civic authorities as public space.

TN: UB city is the best example. The plaza is this open space that is created in the middle of the
space as public space with access through private space.

SN: There are no frameworks that suggest with where it can be located or how the public can ac- cess it. Those are the kinds of rules that are not clear. There are always ways to get around that whole situation by fragmenting it into twenty pieces in the master-plan, spreading it all over the space.

VS: The architects are to blame. They never programme those spaces

RK: They prioritise what they want to build at the expense of these spaces. They become the resi- due.

SN: There is no regulatory framework. The rules are but they are open to interpretation.

VS: That is because the implementation is not strict.

TN: The Government is weak. As per the constitution, it is forbidden to build a wall around a pro- ject of the scale of a gated community. This is by law forbidden. If you are looking at the situation today, all the gated communities have walls.

RK: That is how Jagriti was done. That is how the 10% was converted into a theater. Before they were thinking of having it in some other place. But I suggested that they use their piece of land to create a public space. You are absolutely right in that, if the architect becomes responsible in im- plementing these rules it works well. At the same time I do not agree with you (Thibault), most Eu- ropean examples, have a notion of comfort of living through history. Most European cities are dead for innovation. We all seem to love to experience this joy of living a hundred years before. There is no bigger joy than hugging your mother, going back to your native place.

TN: What do you mean by innovation?

RK: There is a very nice article by Rem Koolhaas, who writes about this building in Dubai, these cit- ies represent a new cultural idiom. You do not know what to do with your girl so you get married because historically that is the easiest acceptance to be together, everybody likes it, you like it, she likes it and everything works fine. You tend to always suck back into nostalgia. He says that is the problem with most European cities. I agree with him on that note, whereas when you have to build in China or India, it is instant gratification, you don’t know, you are building on tabula rasa.