Darwinism in the backyard

My 11 month old son and I had ventured outside to take a nature feel and as we came around back into the conservatory saw this web, almost picture-book, well knitted, about half a metre across, its proud creator in the crown perch. Junior in my arms at the time, made his presence felt by flagging the dewy twigs right over the web.

Obviously hassled by a less than considerate little homosapien in his vicinity Mr.Spider (gender assumption) scurried off to relative safety at a ledge not far where he was able to keep a watch over his web. And as he did that, I realised soon that our intrusion seemed to be depriving the poor chap, fruit of his painstakingly assembled web. A little entangled moth, was apparently benefiting from our presence in slowly disengaging himself from his predicament.

More to steer clear of intervention in nature than in partisanship towards either party, we quietly move to the far end of the courtyard. A few minutes later as we ventured back, found a bit of action underway. Mr.Spider was back in the middle and very much in control, neatly folding the moth away in his sticky, thready produce, almost as one would roll cotton onto a spindle. Junior conjectured carefully this time and did not intrude. A newly found respect for Mr. Spider I think. Assertion begets respect and the arachnid did show some assertion in coming back despite presence of larger beings around.

Actually more than one reason to award the fellow some respect -

One, placing the web right in front of a window and on the outside is quite an intelligent location. Moths and others of their kind are attracted towards light, and close hours of the day is good time for business. Evolution or coincidence? Banking on Charles Darwin's theory of species, am inclined to believe its evolution.

Secondly, the chap is by coincidence keeping our domestic airspace relatively moth-free, fair payback for window usage rights!

Missed the photo-op, so an illustrative to go with, not to scale :).

Urban housing for the poor – a pipe dream?

From my recent trip to Bangalore, I felt I could well take back what I had commented earlier about the city's new airport, almost. The new airport in visual perspectives is a leap of infrastructure from what was. The distance from the town has triggered developments of transport system almost as a guilty over-compensation of a city, in having pushed its key artery way out. What was widely discussed as the major flaw as in being too far, seems its primary strength today. With the network and transport infrastructure developing well, surroundings may well benefit. With more improvements to follow, a ring road void of traffic lights, metro to the airport in another few years, things should get better. And when they do, the extended boundary of the city promises a new urban-scape and an opportunity to develop afresh. Along a distance of 30 KM out of city along N-S axis and a nearly unlimited horizontal spread in E-W axis, there is well an opportunity to build new self sufficient townships for several million more. In close continuity with a city that is already an economic powerhouse for the country.

How that opportunity is playing out is a bit different. Proper town planning in India has generally fallen by the wayside or was a flash in the pan whenever and wherever it was. Governments are generally paralysed and happy enough with monetising powers to license and authorise, than plan and complete developments for all sections of society. Builders see little benefit than in providing houses for the rich. With the result that the new areas along the way to Bangalore's new airport are developing as a disorganised, spaghetti patchwork of islands of fine, rich living amidst large tracts of what remains of villages and people deprived of their staple agriculture. Its a a skin deep statistic, easy to discover a kilometre or two into the by-roads from the airport expressways. You find housing pockets lacking clean water, electricity, healthcare and sanitation right alongside apartment and housing complex that pare with best in the world. The government and the political class benefit from both consumer groups. One segment seek hope in voting for change that new government promises and the rich seek comfort in paying off harassment that any government can enduringly provide.

Chandigarh, my hometown, was developed as a model township that future township developments could emulate. A grid based city with equitable housing allocation for all classes of society, allocation of schools, markets and healthcare facilities in order. A master blueprint available to all planners to emulate. The city now stands for an image quite different to what its founder envisioned. The model never got replicated and now exists in isolation as a one off precious artifact of global standard urban landscape in India. Not surprisingly, its property prices compare with most expensive areas in cities like London and Paris. A 2-3 bedroom floor unit of a 200 sq yard house costs anywhere in the 50 sq km block of Chandigarh costs upwards of £200,000. A 500sq yard house upwards of £600,000. In a country where per capita income is at £200 per annum, forget poor man, the place is out of reach for even the modern upper middle class. Even they are able to afford settlements in Bangalore-like spaghetti network townships bordering Chandigarh. And with the social housing pockets in Chandigarh proper having being saturated, the lower middle class and are now getting pushed out to far fringes, where schooling, healthcare, transport and good electricity and water are less certain in an anyways constrained system.

Situation in other cities are I believe no different. Better infra in town has come to mean more opportunity for government and real estate developers to make a big buck than share the infrastructure among all classes. In such backdrop, feel pessimistic about what even finest developments in infrastructure can sustainably provide in India. Photo ops for India shining story - yes, better traffic for few years - maybe, quality urban living for all sections of society - clearly not.