Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababu Naidu has been clever with his choice of location. To minimize risk, the ‘capital region’ is strategically located between two major urban agglomerations—Vijaywada and Guntur. Photo: Reuters
The development of Amaravati
on a greenfield site of 217 square kilometres is by far the most audacious
project undertaken by Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababu Naidu. His
previous goals pale in comparison to this one. City-building, as global and Indian
experiences suggest, is a feat in itself. Why? Because globally, most
economically vibrant cities have developed organically. Building cities
inorganically entails significant risk in thinking through and developing the
human capital, infrastructural, financial and administrative dimensions, all of
which are interrelated. In effect it requires setting in motion a virtuous
development cycle by taking bold steps and making significant investments
across all dimensions. In such ambitious projects there is little room for
error. It is not akin to an airport design exercise in which if the simulation
goes wrong, it can be rectified with a few hundred crore of investment that
will pay for itself reasonably quickly through assured air traffic volumes. For
a city to work, synergy across various dimensions is vital.
To begin with, Naidu has been
clever with his choice of location. To minimize risk, the “capital region” is
strategically located between two major urban agglomerations—Vijayawada and
Guntur. The Vijayawada metropolitan cluster will be one of the 49 metropolitan
clusters to disproportionately contribute to India’s gross domestic product by
2025. Second, the region is well connected by road, rail and air, and is close
to the planned Machilipatnam port. In short, planned and existing
infrastructure ensures smooth connectivity and limits the need for fresh
investments. Third, existing social infrastructure in Vijayawada, about 40km
away, will facilitate densification. Effectively, Naidu’s Amaravati is Mumbai
Metropolitan Region’s Navi Mumbai. Navi Mumbai is spread across 344 sq. km and
at a distance of 33km from the core city.
Last week’s appointment of two
Singapore-based companies—Sembcorp Industries Ltd and Ascendas–Singbridge Pte
Ltd—to develop a world-class city and the adoption of the Swiss challenge
method highlights five underlying factors.
First, it reaffirms the chronic
lack of capacity in India’s private and public sectors in urban development.
The state government’s emphasis on the need for a foreign partner underscores
its recognition of India’s limited capabilities. Of course, the Swiss challenge
model means that the proposal submitted by the Singapore consortium will be
challenged by other potential master developers, including the Japanese, Chinese
and British. If the competing proposal beats the one proposed by the Singapore
consortium, the mandate to build the capital goes to the other party.
Second, it shows the lack of trust
between the public and private sectors in India. Importantly, it points to the
private sector’s lack of interest in infrastructure development. Indian
developers could have partnered with leading global companies to bid for this
project, but it’s the lack of confidence in the policymaking process, and
policy continuity, coupled with overleveraged balance sheets that has made the
private sector wary. The overall approval process for infrastructure projects
hinges on the whims and fancies of bureaucrats.
Third, it is reflective of the
rising aspirations of India’s political leaders. City-building has replaced
erstwhile symbols of power and development—roads, expressways and airports.
Gujarat International Finance Tec-City, Amaravati, Gurgaon and Navi Mumbai
Airport Influence Notified Area are all examples of this.
Fourth is India’s vast need for
long-term foreign capital. To meet basic service standards, Amaravati’s capital
region will require an investment of Rs.155 trillion over the next 20 years. Naidu’s My Brick- My Amaravati fundraiser with transfers from the
central government will alone not suffice. Neither will land monetization
really work as a lever. Financing Amaravati’s development needs private sector
investors with very deep pockets who can develop and market the city over the
next 20 years.
Fifth, it underscores the
significance of the core of urban planning—getting economic planning right.
Given the life cycle of such projects, the financier-cum-developer is only
likely to earn sizeable profits after the first 5-10 years as valuations rise.
Valuations, in turn, are a function of the buoyancy of economic activity. To
begin with, Amaravati will need to have the right incentives in place to
attract relevant upstream and downstream industries based on its natural
endowments and existing economic activity ranging from agriculture to mining,
and electronics manufacturing. Equally it will need to invest in building
social and recreational infrastructure to attract capital and talent.
But the ultimate question is—will
this consortium enjoy the continuity of vision and purpose required to really
cash out in the medium to long term? Can Andhra Pradesh develop the talent to
make Amaravati an economically vibrant city? Will successive regimes in the
state and city cut red tape, weed out bureaucratic arbitrariness and set in motion
a virtuous cycle of development? In short, will Amaravati become the land of
Naidu’s dreams? To realize his audacious goals, perhaps Naidu will need
three-four terms in office to ensure Amaravati becomes his vision of a
“world–class” city and not another Navi Mumbai.
Inside the top five of the favorite articles, thankyou!
ReplyDeletesalesforce cpq learning path
salesforce cpq online training Hyderabad
salesforce cpq online training India