Sunday, August 14, 2011

Lutyens’ Delhi

Thesis Spring 2004: Proposal ____________________________________________PAROMITA ROY

How could ‘Lutyens’ Delhi’ – the post-colonial city core of New Delhi, be re-described as an evolving democratic public environment for its people, re-emphasizing its significance as ‘world space’, ‘nation space’ and ‘city space’?

How and why was Lutyens’ Delhi built?

The City of Delhi is probably the land of some of the world’s greatest historical and architectural treasures. Traditionally called the land of “seven cities”, it was rebuilt as the capital of the India about seven times, by various empires down history since 1450 B.C. The actual figure however, is probably closer to “fifteen”, ‘a dozen cities already defunct and in ruin before the first Mughal Emperor occupied Delhi in 1526.1 All the sub-cities of Delhi contribute richly towards defining the character of this ancient
New Delhi, the Capital of British India, was the “last” addition to the formally built “Cities of Delhi”. It was built after 1911 A.D. by the British Imperialists, as a symbol of their political power and dominance over the Indian subcontinent.
Designed as the “City of Monuments” as part of the City Beautiful movement – the vital underlying concept of design was to create a Grand, ‘Monumental’, ‘larger-than-life’ city space which would inspire awe among the conquered colonial citizens and be symbolic of the implied socio-cultural, architectural and political superiority, and dominion of the imperialist British Empire.
The new capital, meant to be the “Imperial Capital to a subcontinent, the culmination of the dreams of British rulers for a century”, ironically took 20 years to finish, and was able to fill that role for a mere sixteen years.2
Designed by Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker, “British New Delhi” is now a small but significant part of the greater metropolis of New Delhi, which is the capital of modern India. The sub-city is now popularly called “Lutyens’ Delhi”.
Spread over 2,800 hectares or 1.8 per cent of the area of Delhi today, Lutyens’ Delhi borders along the southern fringes of Shahjahanabad (the older city of Delhi) and lies to the west of the Yamuna river. Among the notable features of the Zone is Rajpath (the grand central axis, called the “Central Vista”) anchored by the Rashtrapati Bhavan (The Viceroy's Palace) and India Gate (the War Memorial Arch). Diagonal axes link with Connaught Place, the commercial center and to Parliament House. One of the major nodes conceived by Lutyens for the Central Vista was the Princes' Park, with the ceremonial arch (India Gate), the chhatri, landscaped areas and the palaces of Indian princes.3
Lutyens’ Delhi today is on the list of 100 most endangered sites published recently by the World Monuments Fund, NY. http://www.wmf.org/a/watchlist.htm#AS. Though a symbol of imperialist subjugation for the Indians, the ‘new city of Delhi‘, along with the Red Fort, is what gives the city its primary identity today as the political capital of the nation. It constitutes ‘nation space’ – as a historical legacy and a symbolic identity of India as a country
– it is therefore a “significant environment” for the city of Delhi.
Figure 2. The Republic Day parade, held annually on January 26 along the Central Vista. Source: Indian Summer: Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi

1 Irving, Robert Grant. (1981) Indian summer: Lutyens, Baker, Imperial Delhi. New Haven: Yale University Press,1981, p.2 2 Irving, Robert Grant. (1981) Indian summer: Lutyens, Baker, Imperial Delhi. New Haven: Yale University Press,1981, p.22 3 Anonymous. (July 26, 2002) “Conserving Lutyens’ Delhi”, in HT Estates, August 2002
http://www.hindustantimes.com/2002/Aug/04/674_0,003100050003.htm
  • The "Central Vista" of Rajpath with the Rashtrapati Bhawan and “India Gate”, have become the identity of Modern India. The biggest National ceremony, the Republic Day Parade is held here every year on 26th of January.
  • In spite of Mughal Architecture being "piffle" according to Lutyens, the architecture of his New Delhi is a harmonious and unique amalgamation of Victorian-European and Indo-Islamic and Buddhist styles. Numerous Indian motifs and elements like the chhatris, domes, minarets, brackets, chajjas, jaalis, railings, hybrid-columns and even materials fit in beautifully with European Neo-Classism, making the buildings architectural treasures. 4
  • The roads, avenues and vistas of New Delhi, are unique in terms of scale, architectural and spatial experience, and are a legacy that the city ought to 'conserve'. (Most of them have retained their character as designed, though the perception of some of the view corridors has got diminished due to the indiscriminate construction.)
  • It carries the Central Business District of the city -Connaught Place.
  • With its huge green cover it acts as the city's lungs, repairing air damaged by pollutants, giving Delhi the unique distinction of having an inner city area cooler than the outer edge.5

Why is there a need for intervention?

Lutyens Delhi today is an invaluable asset to the world as a historical “urban heritage”. It is significant as “nation space” – being symbolic of India as a country and New Delhi as the capital city. It also has the tremendous potential of becoming a “city space” – a meaningful public environment for the people of Delhi.
However, several factors are causing the area to fall short of fulfilling all the above roles effectively, possibly due to lack of synergy between the respective determinant forces and actors:

As a “World Heritage Site”:

  1. o The basic frame of New Delhi originally projected to house some 50,000 people, is today, in enlarged area, home to about 4,000,000 and still expanding! The burgeoning population has led to a severe pressure on services and infrastructure, which Lutyens' city is crumbling under.
  2. o Presence of the Central Business District caused the land prices in and around the area to sky-rocket, making the area into a most sought after zone for builders. Original residential land owners readily sold their plots for hefty sums and moved to the cheaper suburbs (which demanded new infrastructures), leaving the land open to destruction by the builders.
  3. o The initial absence of suitable building controls led to the construction of incongruous high-rises in the middle of Lutyens' low rise vistas and axial compositions, or destruction of the street edge through unauthorized expansion.

As a “Nation Space”:

There are two aspects to the role of Lutyens Delhi as ‘nation space’.
The central vista of Rajpath and India Gate are symbolic of the Democratic Republic of India, to people all over the nation, inspiring awe and pride in their country. The architecture and the spaces have effectively lost their colonial connotations and are now symbolic only of the aspirations of the people of India themselves.
However, structurally, Lutyens Delhi leaves much to be desired. After Independence in 1947, the new democratic Indian government adapted to this imperial city core with the symbolic inclusion of Red Fort from the older city of Delhi, Shahjahanabad. However, the usage patterns and hierarchy of spaces within and without Lutyens Delhi has remained the same, in spite of the advent of a democratic political system. The Lutyens’ city core and the Bungalow zone, is still occupied primarily by the bureaucrats, political
4 Irving, Robert Grant. (1981) Indian summer: Lutyens, Baker, Imperial Delhi. New Haven: Yale University Press,1981, p.102 5
Mukherjee, Sanjib. (2002). “Lutyens’ Dream Turning Into a Nightmare” in the-south-asian.com, http://www.the-south-asian.com/March2002/Lutyen's%20Delhi%20-%20endangered-1.htm, March 2002, p.1
bodies and government employees, with a hierarchical distribution of resources and zoning within the zone according to political status. The Lutyens’ city and its constituent urban fabric was designed to keep the “lowly” native Indians “out” of the imperial city core, and ironically, this is one function is still continues to fulfill.
Being the capital of the nation, Delhi has seen a sudden influx of political refugees after partition in 1947, as well as a continual inflow of people from all parts of the country in search of better economic opportunities. Consequently, it has become a true multi-layered city with the amalgamation of historical artifacts, cultures and values from all over the country.
As a symbol of the political and cultural ideologies of a nation, therefore, the role of Lutyens’ Delhi needs to be now re-described – to express the identities and cultures of the people of India as a whole and of Delhi in particular.
It is apparent that Lutyens’ Delhi is not a neutral or natural cultural landscape. There is a need, therefore, to galvanize people towards this realization that the attempt here is to preserve an urban landscape, not an extinct socio-political culture as part of this “nation space”.

As a “City Space”:

The population of Delhi today is about 14 million.
Different people have different mental maps or 'images' of their own "personal city" within the city, each with its own idiosyncrasies, depending on their different perceptions, patterns of use, social values, backgrounds, educational level, urban knowledge and methods of transportation; hence the adjective "pluralist" to the city (-Donald Appleyard).
However, despite the lack of a common image, some parts of the city are held more in common than other parts due to common activities or social setting. These comprise the cognitive "public environment". The public environment is an arena for communication for its people -it determines the character, image, and self-image of the city. It is formed when the public patterns of use, travel, and visibility encounter imageable or significant elements in the city. The major circulation system, its principal decision points, and the most intensely used destinations are therefore, the core components of this environment. It's effective "publicness" is determined by the intensities of flow and densities of activity in the area.
The "public environments" of Delhi do not effectively overlap with the "significant environment" of Lutyens Delhi, except briefly at the CBD -Connaught Place and at the Central Vista at India Gate. Though very green, beautifully landscaped and well maintained, Lutyens' Delhi has little or no 'public realm' – and few destinations.
The Zone however, has the potential of becoming a cognitive public environment. In this context, it becomes important to redefine the configuration and meaning of these pieces of the city from the view point of the inhabitants or those using its public channels, through "events" that occur in them (not necessarily as new built forms, but as new destinations) to bring them to the public eye.
The new public environment ought to have a number of desirable qualities:
  1. o Richness and Diversity
  2. o Communicability and Symbolism
  3. o Structural Coherence
  4. o Change and Stability
There is a need for Lutyens’ Delhi to become a “public environment” meaningful to its citizens – one in which they can have true pride.

Therefore…

A re-description of Lutyens’ Delhi would therefore include re-emphasizing its significant urban structure in sympathy with Lutyens’ original intent while integrating it with the present needs and aspirations of the people of Delhi; such that conservation of an urban heritage, growth and development of a nation-city and socio-cultural evolution of its people, can work in conjunction.

COMPETING THEORIES THAT WILL INFORM THE RESEARCH

My research will derive its values from the following streams of enquiry:

EDWIN LUTYENS, HERBERT BAKER, HENRY LANCHESTER, VICEROY HARDINGE “City of Monuments”

Major sources of this stream of enquiry shall be Robert Grant Irving. In his book “Indian Summer: Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi”, Irving traces the architectural, political and social history that led to the creation of the new British-Indian capital of New Delhi.
New Delhi was selected to be the capital of British India for its political and strategic advantages, in keeping with Delhi’s traditions as an imperial capital of numerous earlier dynasties that ruled over India. The new city was designed as the “City of Monuments” as part of the City Beautiful movement. Seeking to establish their dominion and supremacy on the Indian subcontinent, the British wanted to build visible symbols of authority and dominion, concerned also to house their servants in the style of life they were accustomed.
The principal actors in the design of British New Delhi were Edwin Lutyens, Herbert Baker, Henry Lanchester and Viceroy Hardinge.
The work of Edwin Lutyens reflected his love for Geometry and the simple axial Classicism of Inigo Jones and Wren. Herbert Baker had worked on the government buildings for the new Union of South Africa; his architectural ideas were ‘Nationalist and Imperialist, symbolic and ceremonial. He referred to his plans for the raised ‘government house complex’ buildings as an acropolis – “a city set on a hill cannot be hid.” 6
Both Lutyens and Baker were classicists -Lutyens an inventive eclectic who tended toward a more personal and idiosyncratic architecture than did the proper and stuffy Baker, but a classicist nonetheless. Neither man was likely to suggest an architecture that relied heavily on Indian tradition. However, Lutyens' ability to create processional architecture, architecture that depends for its effect on our approach and movement through a sequence of varied spaces, was unsurpassed. 7
Lord Hardinge, the viceroy at the time New Delhi was begun, wanted the architecture to pay at least some attention to the Indian vernacular ''lest Indians justly complain that he had ignored their tastes while asking them to underwrite the cost.'' Others used less pragmatic reasons for suggesting some sort of composite style; E.B. Havell, a writer on Indian art, wanted the buildings to be ''a bridge between the cultures.''8
Henry Lanchester brought several significant and refreshing changes into the city plan which were instrumental in many strategic decisions. His theory of designing the city as a sequence of unfolding events was incorporated in the form of subsidiary axial views and anchors incorporating the old Delhi monuments; and the philosophy of “urban improvement” which evinced a preference for corrective surgery on existing fabric, rather than “wholesale redevelopment” facilitated the unification of the “old and new cities of Delhi into a harmonious whole, complementing each other”.9
The New British Raj capital succeeded in weaving the strands of many centuries and empires into the new whole, co-exisiting with the monuments of past rulers, yet “quietly dominating them all”.10
6 Irving, Robert Grant. (1981) Indian summer: Lutyens, Baker, Imperial Delhi. New Haven: Yale University Press,1981, p.22 7 Paul Goldberger. (March 28, 1982) “Let There Be New Delhi, Said George V”, book review in The New York Times, March 1982
www.cs.jhu.edu/~bagchi/delhi/writing/lutyens.html
8 Paul Goldberger. (March 28, 1982) “Let There Be New Delhi, Said George V”, book review in The New York Times, March 1982
www.cs.jhu.edu/~bagchi/delhi/writing/lutyens.html
9 Irving, Robert Grant. (1981) Indian summer: Lutyens, Baker, Imperial Delhi. New Haven: Yale University Press,1981, p.22 10 Irving, Robert Grant. (1981) Indian summer: Lutyens, Baker, Imperial Delhi. New Haven: Yale University Press,1981, p.22

ABIDIN KUSNO, EDWARD SAID Postcolonial Theory

Said’s ideology can be traced from his book ‘Culture and Imperialism’. Said argues that Western imperialism's most effective tools for dominating native cultures have been literary in nature as much as political and economic. He traces the themes of 19th-and 20th-century Western fiction and contemporary mass media as weapons of conquest. The book makes a strong case for how cultures can be dominated by ‘words’ or symbolism.
Abidin Kusno explores the theme of modern architecture and urbanism in the colonial and postcolonial world from a unique perspective: as that of a colonial gift inherited by a postcolonial state. He makes the case of how colonial representations are revived and rearticulated in postcolonial societies particularly in postcolonial Indonesia. Kusno explores how colonial culture in Indonesia is appropriated to invent a “new” postcolonial identity. Architecture and urban space can be seen, both historically and theoretically, as representations of an emerging as well as declining social order. They are a function of the complex interactions between public images of the past and the present, between images of global urban cultures and the concrete historical meanings of the local. Political history of postcolonial architecture and urban space can be written in a waythat recognizes the political cultures of the present without neglecting the importance of the colonial past.

CHARLES CORREA Social Equity

Charles Correa’s ideology can be traced from ‘The New Landscape’, a manifesto for third world urbanization. Correa identifies a syndrome common to almost all third world urban centers. They each seem to consist of two different cities: one is for the poor; the other (interlocked with it) is for the rich. Although these two worlds are separate territories, the rich and the poor enjoy a symbiotic relationship. This is not always understood by the rich who often conveniently overlook the fact that they need the poor to run the city – not to mention their own households! “The New Landscape” outlines the various competing socio-political forces operating in Third World countries today and the kind of urban environments they indicate. The issues range from the macro level of demographic patterns and national policies, through public transport and city structures, down to the human scale of squatter settlements. Correa emphasizes the need – both political and moral – for equity in the urban context; through the employment of crucial design/management techniques in dealing with the colossal numbers and the decisive importance of political will.

CRITICAL THEORY and URBANISM:

Three streams of inquiry shall inform my research:
  • PSYCHO-GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS: Donald Appleyard ("pluralist city" and "cognitive public environment, significant environments vs. public environments”), Kevin Lynch (human perception and behavior in the city: legibility as a function of the “mental maps” of people)
  • FORMAL ANALYSIS: Klaus Herdeg/Aldo Rossi (Reconstitution of traditional Indian formal structures/urban artifacts in a new context).
  • SOCIO-CULTURAL ANALYSIS: Charles Correa, William Dalrymple, Michael Sorkin, Richard Sennett,

PRESERVATION vs. CONSERVATION:

Major sources of this stream of enquiry shall be Rahul Mehrotra (Development with Heritage as opposed to Development versus Heritage; Potential with Identity as an alternative to Potential versus Identity),
Preservation Laws and Proposal Documents from New Delhi.

METHODOLOGY

  1. Exploration of the historically and socially based critical theory.
  2. Preparation of a Manifesto:
My approach for intervention shall be derived through Interpretive-historical, Qualitative and Correlational research strategies. To arrive at my manifesto for conservation and change, I shall employ the research methods of social constructivism, developing matrices and mapping studies to explore along the following strategies:
  • PSYCHO-GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS: Sketches, observations, statistical data, public surveys and literature survey shall inform this exploration of how urban form shapes the psyche and sociability of public space. Mental mapping methods shall help analyze the relative significance of area in Lutyens’ Delhi to the people of Delhi, employing three different techniques of research – Interviews or emailsurveys, Sorting Exercises using visual aids, and Participant Observation.
  • FORMAL ANALYSIS: This shall include three streams of enquiry – Historical Interpretation (analyzing Lutyens’ original intent, programs and structuring mechanisms); Case studies (intentions and adaptations in similar post-colonial city centers elsewhere, eg. Paris, Washington DC); and Interpretation of the present state (mapping the structural changes made to the area through new interventions, hierarchy of historical significance of sites and structures shall be established, potential impact of prevalent and proposed usage patterns and the Underground Rail Transit System shall be mapped)
  • SOCIO-CULTURAL ANALYSIS: This shall include Historical interpretation of traditional Indian values and ways-of-living and their implications on traditional built-form and city form; Case Studies of successful socio-cultural centers in Delhi and other cities of India; and Interviews or email-surveys to develop a matrix of interests and visions for the area of different stakeholder groups and people form different modes of society.
  1. Galvanize Action: Spatial structure of the changing layers of Lutyens’ Delhi shall be mapped based on the above analysis. The desires/aspirations of stake holders and people from different strata of society, shall be compiled into a “Matrix of Values” that may look like the following:
  2. Different design scenarios shall be developed based on different criteria derived from the above analysis. An overlay of these scenarios would then help identify synergies and conflicts between the various stakeholder groups. Values based on the above competing theories and prevalent social ideologies shall be employed to critique the matrices and observations, and informed choices made to resolve these mutual conflicts and enhance the synergies.
  3. Design of a Process: My scope of study could be limited to two or more model zones which would exemplify the extremities of current development conditions in the area. One or more prototype designs for selected detail study areas shall be developed to exemplify the manifesto. The design prototypes or suggestions could be in the form of design processes, policies and scenarios for these zones, which could be implemented in parts as pilot projects, meant to be tested out and then expanded over larger areas with similar issues.
INTEREST GROUP VALUES (based on above streams of research)
What does Lutyens’ Delhi mean to them? What spaces in the city do they inhabit now? What are their attitudes towards social space? What are their visions/aspirations in Lutyens’ Delhi?
Imperialists (Lutyens et all)
Preservationists
Bureaucrats
Developers
Working Class
Multi-cultural Middle Class
Partition Refugees
Researcher
METHODOLOGY DIAGRAM: showing “Streams of Enquiry”, Strategies and Research Methods.

Role of Lutyens’ Delhi as World-, Nation-, and City-Space
Identification of different stakeholders, interest groups and social strata

physical spatial conditions place can develop over time to “places” or uses of public space

The thesis will explore the relative need of preservation and change within Lutyens’ Delhi and aim to provide a tentative program and a suggested policy and spatial framework for either scenario.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

EDWIN LUTYENS:

  1. Volwahsen, Andreas. Imperial Delhi : the British capital of the Indian Empire. New York: Prestel, 2002.
  2. Irving, Robert Grant. “Indian summer: Lutyens, Baker, Imperial Delhi. New Haven: Yale University Press,1981.
  3. Nath, Aman. “Dome over India: Rashtrapati Bhawan”. Mumbai: India Book House Pvt. Ltd. For the President’s Secretariat, 2002.
  4. Hussey, Christopher. “The life of Sir Edwin Lutyens”. Antique Collector's Club, 1984.
  5. Lutyens, Sir Edwin Lutyens. “The Letters of Edwin Lutyens to his wife Lady Emily”. London: Collins, 1985.
  6. Irving, Robert Grant. "The New Delhi: the work of Sir Edwin Lutyens and Sir Herbert Baker", Architectural Review, 1926 Dec, pp. 216-225.

POST-COLONIALISM:

  1. Said, Edward W. “Culture and Imperialism”
  2. Kusno, Abidin. “Behind the postcolonial: Architecture, Urban Space and Political Cultures in Indonesia”. London ; New York : Routledge, 2000.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE/ EQUITY :

  1. Correa, Charles. The New Landscape. Bombay: Tata Press, 1985.
  2. Correa, Charles. Housing and Urbanization. Bombay: Urban Design Research Institute, 1999.
  3. Dalrymple, William. City of Djinns: a year in Delhi. London: HarperCollins, 1993.
  4. Singh, B. P. The Millennium Book on New Delhi. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001.

CRITICAL THEORY and URBANISM:

  1. Appleyard, Donald. Planning a Pluralist City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1976.
  2. Appleyard, Donald. Liveable Streets. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1981.
  3. Appleyard, Donald. The Conservation of European cities. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, c1979.
  4. Appleyard, Donald. "Liveable Urban Streets: Managing Auto-Traffic in Neighborhoods", Washington, D.C.: Report for Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1976.
  5. Lynch, Kevin. Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972.
  6. Lynch, Kevin. What Time is This Place. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994.
  7. Lynch, Kevin; Southworth, Michael. City Sense and City Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995.
  8. MVRDV. FARMAX: Excursions on density. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 1998
  9. Herdeg, Klaus. Formal Structure in Indian Architecture. New York : Rizzoli, 1990.
  10. Herdeg, Klaus. Formal structure in Islamic architecture of Iran and Turkistan. New York : Rizzoli, 1990.
  11. Kostof, Spiro. The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings through History. Boston: Little, Brown, c1991.
  12. Cullen, Gordon. Townscape. New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp., 1961.
  13. Tiesdell, Steven. Revitalizing historic urban quarters. Boston: Architectural Press, 1996.
  14. Rossi, Aldo. Three Cities. New York: Rizzoli, 1984.
  15. Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982.
  16. Cosgrove, Denis, Edited by. Mappings. London: Reaktion Books, 1999.
  17. Czerniak, Julia. Downsview park Toronto. New York: Prestel Verlag, 2001.
  18. Smets, Marcel."Grid, Casco, Clearing and Montage”, Edition Topos, p. 128-141.

PRESERVATION vs. CONSERVATION:

  1. Mehrotra, Rahul. "Making Legible City Form", Architecture + Design, Sept-Oct 1990, pp. 18-25.
  2. Mehrotra, Rahul J. Poetics of F.S.I, A+D, Dec 1997.
  3. Sabikhi, Ranjit." The Urban Explosion and Urban Design", Architecture + Design, Sept-Oct 1990, pp. 18-25.
34. Correa, Charles." Urban Form: Excerpt from the national commission on urbanization report", Architecture + Design, Sept-Oct 1990, pp. 18-25.
35. Jain, Uttam. "Context based Architecture", Architecture + design, Vol. XIV No 1, Jan-Feb 1997, p.20-
25.
36. Martyn D. "Inner City Areas", Architecture + Design, Sept-Oct 1990, pp. 18-25.
7. Biswas, Ramesh Kumar. "Urban Transformations", Architecture + Design, Sept-Oct 1990, pp. 18
25.
37. Giami, Bharat M. "Simulations in Urban Architecture", Architecture + Design, Sept-Oct 1990, pp. 18
25.
38. Levy, Daniel S." Destruction through Construction", Metropolis, November 1988, pp. 58-89.
39. Sorkin, Michael. "Chandigarh after Corbusier", Architectural Record, 1998 February, pp. 68
40. Spodek, Howard. "The urban history of India: an update [book review]", Journal of Urban History, 1986 May, pp. 301-302.

Electronic Sources

1. World Monuments Fund, List of 100 most endangered Sites (accessed on April 19, 2003) http://www.wmf.org/2000list.html?sid=2870&year=2002
2. Delhi Metro Master plan http://www.metropla.net/as/delh/delhi.htm
3. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation http://www.delhimetrorail.com
4. HT Estates, Conserving Lutyens' Delhi http://www.hindustantimes.com/2002/Aug/04/674_0,003100050003.htm

2 comments:

  1. Hi There,came across your blog and your posts on Delhi.
    We are starting up a web portal based on Delhi which will focus on everything that represents Delhi and we are actively seeking Delhi enthusiasts for writing Articles about Delhi

    Was wondering if you'd be interested! If so do email me at priyanka@acropoletravels.com

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hi i m an architecture student and i m doing my thesis on lutyens delhi .it would be a great help if you could share your thesis with me or any information for that matter . my email id. is jassicachatwal@gmail.com .or if you could tell me your mail id. or contact no. thank u

    ReplyDelete