1 Introduction
The performance of city planning systems in developing and emerging countries varies within a wide range. Some planning approaches are based on sophisticated theories, some are plagiarizing dated western ideas. Some planning systems are remarkably efficient, some are not. While Chinese planners, for example, realized the economically and socially detrimental impacts of the Los Angeles model this is apparently not the case with many Indian planners.
2 India's Planning System
The country's urban planning system features a remarkable continuity. Its guiding principles date back to The Handbook of Town Planning, published by the colonial Public Works Department in 1876. Until India's independence the British amended it eight times in order to reflect advances in planning practice. Since 1947 the Indian successor re-published it twice, but altered its contents only marginally. In consequence, India's planning approach reflects British concepts which were state of the art prior to World War II. To put it in other words: planning is based on outdated western ideas, on obsolete principles of zoning, car-dependency and social segregation.
Moreover, there mostly is no systematic and coherent regional land use planning. This fact partly stems from a fragmented system of local government within metropolitan areas. It, too, results from policies aiming at a relief of crowded centers by limiting floor-area ratios, site occupancy, and density of development. In addition, local authorities in suburban jurisdictions apply less stringent land use regulations, and are bluntly alluring economic activities by promoting their more permissive policies, thus supporting decentralization of both enterprises and population.