The Chandigarh administration has moved ahead with a sweeping rewrite of its Master Plan-2031, pushing for high-rise, high-density development that would allow more people to live within the same land, even as critical questions about infrastructure capacity remain unanswered.
Hindustan Times spoke to architects who have been closely associated with planning and shaping Chandigarh, many of whom flagged that the UT has not done its homework on infrastructure capacity before bringing forth this plan.
The draft amendments, cleared for public consultation by UT administrator Gulab Chand Kataria, mark a shift from the city’s long-standing low-rise, plotted development model toward group housing and high-rise expansion, particularly in the city’s Phase 3 (Sector 48 to 56, Sector 61, Sector 63) and the periphery.
At the heart of the plan is a recalibration of density. Chandigarh, originally designed for a population of 5 lakh, had already reached over 10 lakh residents by 2011, a figure that has only grown since. Yet its core sectors remain relatively low-density. The 2001 census data, quoted in Master plan 2031, shows Phase 1 (Sectors 1 to 30) averages just 26 persons per acre, and Phase 2 (Sector 31 to 47-B) about 60 persons per acre. In stark contrast, resettlement colonies, such as Maloya, Sarangpur and others, in the periphery already record densities between 360 and 700 persons per acre, raising concerns that the proposed push for higher density may be proceeding without a clear assessment of the city’s capacity to absorb such growth.
The changes (see box) are aimed at unlocking land and increasing the city’s “holding capacity.” Large tracts in Phase 3, including over 361 acres, are being positioned for high-density housing. In pockets like Maloya (Pocket 7), density is proposed at 250 persons per acre (45000).
Officials argue that the shift is necessary to deal with the sustained migration and limited land supply. “There is no detailed infrastructure assessment at this stage. A comprehensive project report will be prepared once the amendments are finalised, and augmentation, be it water, electricity, sewage or roads, will be taken up accordingly,” a senior official said.
This sequencing – planning density before assessing capacity – has triggered concern among urban planners.
Need third-party assessment
Ashwani Sabharwal, a former chief architect, said, “Higher housing density may be inevitable, but you cannot put the cart before the horse. The moment land is allotted or housing comes up, people will start moving in, and if the services are not already in place, the system will collapse under pressure.”
“At present, there is no comprehensive infrastructure audit and no clarity on water, sewage, power or road capacity,” he said while calling for an independent evaluation before implementation. “What is needed is a credible third-party assessment to first evaluate existing infrastructure, then plan augmentation in phases. Social infrastructure like schools, healthcare, public spaces, must also grow in tandem,” he said.
Data-driven approach needed for FAR
Architect Kapil Setia raised similar concerns on the basis of the proposed increase in FAR. “Increasing FAR effectively allows more people to live on the same parcel of land, intensifying density and placing additional demand on infrastructure and services,” he said. “Such decisions are typically guided by detailed assessments of carrying capacity — water availability, road networks and service systems. A more data-driven approach would ensure that expansion is sustainable and well-integrated.”
Quality of life, a big question
The amendments also formalise a major policy shift: the complete discontinuation of new plotted housing. All future residential development will take the form of group housing, with vacant pockets in Phase 2 to be replanned where feasible and the bulk of expansion directed toward Phase 3 and peripheral areas.
The administration maintains that infrastructure upgrades will follow in phases as development progresses. But experts warn that the scale of densification being proposed will require substantial and timely augmentation of civic systems.
“We have seen what happened in Zirakpur and parts of Gurgaon. Rapid high-rise growth without matching infrastructure has led to chronic congestion, strain on water and sewerage systems, and a visible decline in quality of life. The concern is that if similar densification is pursued in Chandigarh without adequate groundwork, the city risks moving in that direction,” said veteran architect SK Midha, former chief architect of Chandigarh.
“Even today, we are struggling with shortages in basic social infrastructure, there isn’t enough space in schools, and existing facilities are already under pressure. During my tenure, we consciously resisted moves towards excessive densification to preserve the city’s planning balance. Any such shift now must be approached with far greater caution,” he added.
Architect Deepika Gandhi pointed out that multi-storey structures cannot simply be inserted into a low-rise framework without fundamentally altering its character. “Chandigarh was designed with a certain spatial logic — adequate open spaces, light, ventilation and low-rise built form. When you introduce vertical development into that existing grid, you risk creating narrow alleys, reduced sunlight and poor air circulation, with large building masses overwhelming the surroundings.”
She added that the impact on civic infrastructure could be significant. “With a threefold increase in population, what happens to traffic volumes? Do we really have the road capacity to support this kind of expansion? Are we simultaneously planning for more parks, dispensaries and primary schools? These are essential components of livability.”
Gandhi suggested that large-scale densification may be more viable in newly planned areas. “If the intention is to go vertical, it may be more practical to plan new townships with that framework from the outset rather than retrofitting existing sectors. The question is how tenable is this within Chandigarh’s current grid?”
