MUMBAI: Even as the BMC said it cannot make changes to the design of the proposed coastal road (south), a 6.7km stretch from Priyadarshini Park to the Worli-end of the Bandra-Worli Sea Link, the Bombay high court on Wednesday questioned if a court can decide such issues.
“Are these issues justiciable by a court?” asked Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor. They heard a PIL by city-based architect Alan Abraham alleging that the present design of the coastal road will reduce the size of open spaces.
The PIL suggested three changes: Shift the road towards the landward side of reclaimed land and open spaces to the seaward side, reduce the width of the median, and create pedestrian crossings at the road level instead of underpasses. He urged HC to appoint a committee of independent experts, preferably urban designers, to prepare a feasibility report on his proposed design changes.
The BMC’s detailed reply said 78% work is completed and the three changes are “neither practical nor feasible” and will have “huge time and cost implications”. Also, the design and construction is based on detailed studies carried out by expert bodies.
Senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond with advocate Meenaz Kakalia for Abraham said the coastal road is being looked at “purely as a road or highway”.
Dhond said in European countries the existing road is on the landward side. “We are missing an opportunity of a lifetime… People who come to Mumbai go to Marine Drive or Gateway,” he said, adding that the proposed promenade is “relatively narrow” at 5 metres to 20 metres. “Once you have a promenade road in the middle, you are effectively cutting the promenade,” said Dhond, adding that a “huge median is unnecessary”.
But senior advocate Aspi Chinoy with advocate Joel Carlos for the BMC said the road cannot be shifted as the landward boundary is not a straight line.
“Not that there is a beach. There is a retaining wall and a promenade… The design was not planned overnight. He (petitioner) wakes up one fine day in an epiphany. How can a (Article) 226 court and committee go into it?” asked Chinoy. The PIL will be heard next on September 27.
“Are these issues justiciable by a court?” asked Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor. They heard a PIL by city-based architect Alan Abraham alleging that the present design of the coastal road will reduce the size of open spaces.
The PIL suggested three changes: Shift the road towards the landward side of reclaimed land and open spaces to the seaward side, reduce the width of the median, and create pedestrian crossings at the road level instead of underpasses. He urged HC to appoint a committee of independent experts, preferably urban designers, to prepare a feasibility report on his proposed design changes.
The BMC’s detailed reply said 78% work is completed and the three changes are “neither practical nor feasible” and will have “huge time and cost implications”. Also, the design and construction is based on detailed studies carried out by expert bodies.
Senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond with advocate Meenaz Kakalia for Abraham said the coastal road is being looked at “purely as a road or highway”.
Dhond said in European countries the existing road is on the landward side. “We are missing an opportunity of a lifetime… People who come to Mumbai go to Marine Drive or Gateway,” he said, adding that the proposed promenade is “relatively narrow” at 5 metres to 20 metres. “Once you have a promenade road in the middle, you are effectively cutting the promenade,” said Dhond, adding that a “huge median is unnecessary”.
But senior advocate Aspi Chinoy with advocate Joel Carlos for the BMC said the road cannot be shifted as the landward boundary is not a straight line.
“Not that there is a beach. There is a retaining wall and a promenade… The design was not planned overnight. He (petitioner) wakes up one fine day in an epiphany. How can a (Article) 226 court and committee go into it?” asked Chinoy. The PIL will be heard next on September 27.
