Shared recording

Delhi 3.0: Public Affairs and Urban Development

Session-24 The Future of Public Affairs in India.mp4 · 1:27:43 · 5 speakers

Download (552 MB) Anyone with this link can watch and download this recording.

Summary

The session, convened by Speaker 1 on behalf of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) in collaboration with Pafi, examined how Delhi/NCR can become more livable over the next five years. The discussion framed Delhi as a capital, market and host of shared urban life, with an emphasis on practical, action-oriented improvements to everyday public life rather than only high-level planning.

Participants identified immediate urban stresses including poor air quality, water supply and water quality, waste management, flooding, weak last-mile connectivity, inadequate pedestrian infrastructure, and shortages of quality public spaces. Speaker 2 characterized these issues as an existing crisis rather than a future risk and argued that the core challenge is implementation and coordination—“how,” rather than “what,” should be done.

Speaker 5 and Speaker 4 emphasized that urban development must account for displaced communities, accessible public spaces, culture, recreation and governance. Speaker 5 cited the need for an overarching institutional framework across Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida, Faridabad and other NCR areas. Speaker 4 called for greater devolution of authority to city-level institutions with accountability, as well as cultural and sports infrastructure as part of urban infrastructure.

Speaker 3 reviewed the Delhi master plan, describing it as a shift from expansion and regulation toward regeneration, redevelopment, densification and incentives for private participation. The plan projects the NCT population reaching 3.2 crore by 2047 and calls for 40 lakh new homes within existing boundaries. Speaker 3 noted that detailed policies and stronger local-area and neighborhood planning are still needed to protect street-level lived experience, walkability, shade and last-mile connectivity.

The panel discussed roles for private enterprise, communities and government. Speaker 5 cited redevelopment and management examples such as Red Fort and Delhi AeroCity, while Speaker 2 argued philanthropy can supplement but cannot solve urban challenges at scale. Speaker 2 maintained that capital is generally available for defined projects; the constraints are coordination, municipal capacity, local governance, competence and, in some cases, corruption. Speaker 2 also argued that residents must contribute more toward local services and maintenance.

In the fireside discussion, Speaker 2 described Max Estates’ approach to integrating wellbeing into office and residential development, and its effort to improve the surrounding ecosystem outside project boundaries. Speaker 2 stated that the company increased its project budget by 5% for external-area upliftment, including engagement with a nearby settlement lacking sanitation and water services. Speaker 2 said capital and government support were available, but execution capacity and suitable roles within the organization were difficult to establish.

The session closed with commitments to sustained collaboration through ULI and Pafi. Speaker 1 said ULI would publish a white paper from the discussion, engage government and the broader community, and seek to convene local, national and global expertise at the ULI Annual Meeting in Delhi on 02/16/1718. No formal policy decisions were made during the session.

Key takeaways

Air quality and water were repeatedly identified as Delhi/NCR’s most urgent citywide challenges.
Participants viewed coordination, institutional clarity and execution capacity—not simply capital availability—as the primary barriers to urban improvement.
The Delhi master plan was described as enabling redevelopment, densification and private-sector participation, but requiring detailed implementation policies and stronger local planning.
Public spaces, walkability, culture, recreation, sanitation and last-mile connectivity were treated as essential elements of urban infrastructure.
Private developers and residents were encouraged to take responsibility beyond project or home boundaries, while government remains necessary for scale and coordination.
ULI and Pafi intend to continue the discussion, publish a white paper and pursue follow-up engagement.

Key moments

Session opening
Speaker 1 introduces the panel and states that a fireside chat will follow.
Five-year challenge posed
Speaker 1 asks what should be better in Delhi/NCR in five years.
Clean air identified as top priority
Speaker 2 says cities are already in crisis and prioritizes clean air, followed by water.
Governance fragmentation highlighted
Speaker 5 identifies the lack of an overarching institutional framework for Delhi/NCR.
Delhi master plan implications
Speaker 3 outlines population, housing, regeneration and densification elements of the plan.
Capital versus coordination debate
Speaker 2 argues that capital is not the primary constraint; coordination and municipal capacity are.
Culture framed as infrastructure
Speaker 4 argues that cultural demand exists but physical infrastructure is inadequate.
External-area upliftment example
Speaker 2 describes allocating 5% of a project budget to improvements outside a development boundary.
Air and water prioritized
Speaker 2 identifies air and water as the city’s two biggest issues.
ULI follow-up announced
Speaker 1 commits to a white paper, stakeholder engagement and continued convening.

Decisions made

No explicit final decision was identified.

Proposals & suggestions (not confirmed decisions)

Use district-scale collaboration among public agencies, businesses and communities to take shared responsibility for urban improvement. — suggested by Speaker 1. Outcome: Discussed through examples; no formal decision.
Create or strengthen an overarching institutional framework for Delhi/NCR, including Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida and Faridabad. — proposed by Speaker 5. Outcome: Supported in principle by later discussion of institutional fragmentation; no formal decision.
Devolve authority to an accountable city-level leadership structure with the power to act. — proposed by Speaker 4. Outcome: No final decision.
Prioritize local-area and neighborhood planning to ensure walkability, shade, public-realm continuity and last-mile connectivity as redevelopment proceeds. — proposed by Speaker 3. Outcome: No final decision.
Recognize culture, community, nature and recreation as urban infrastructure and develop more physical venues for them. — suggested by Speaker 4. Outcome: Discussed and supported by Speaker 1; no final decision.
Use a business or experience improvement district-type model, with active urban management for business districts. — proposed by Speaker 1. Outcome: Raised as a model informed by other cities; no final decision.
Encourage leading Delhi/NCR developers to adopt external-area upliftment practices similar to the 5% project-budget allocation described in the fireside discussion. — suggested by Speaker 1. Outcome: No final decision; Speaker 1 indicated ULI would engage developers.

Action items

Action	Owner	Deadline
Publish and circulate a white paper based on the session discussion.	Speaker 1	Not specified
Engage government on the themes and proposals raised in the discussion.	Speaker 1	Not specified
Engage the wider community and developers, including consideration of broader adoption of external-area improvement practices.	Speaker 1	Not specified
Continue the ULI-Pafi partnership and sustain the Delhi 3.0 conversation through the ULI Delhi District Council.	Speaker 1	Not specified
Seek to convene local, national and global colleagues at the ULI Annual Meeting in Delhi to advance the discussion.	Speaker 1	02/16/1718
Allocate 5% of the relevant project budget to uplift the external ecosystem outside the development boundary.	Speaker 2	Not specified
Work with like-minded people and contribute time toward a shared urban-improvement goal.	Speaker 2	Not specified
Use available platforms to press for accountability in urban improvement.	Speaker 4	Not specified
Prioritize impact measurement over regulation.	Speaker 3	Not specified

Topics discussed

Opening: ULI, Pafi and Delhi 3.0 framing

to 00:08:23 Speaker 1

Speaker 1 introduced the ULI-Pafi collaboration, ULI’s work on the built environment, and the Delhi 3.0 initiative. The session was framed around improving public life across Delhi and its districts, with the guiding question: what should be better in five years?

Audience priorities and clean-air focus

to 00:15:49 Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3, Speaker 4

Speaker 2 gathered audience views on public transport, affordable housing, waste management, walkability, last-mile connectivity and water supply. Speaker 2 identified clean air as the top priority, followed by water, and argued that cities are already in crisis and need implementation-focused solutions.

Governance, public space and displacement

to 00:26:59 Speaker 1, Speaker 4, Speaker 5

Speaker 5 discussed lessons from Delhi Airport, including relocation of occupants and the human consequences of displacement. Speaker 5 called for better public space and a more coherent governance framework across Delhi/NCR. Speaker 4 highlighted placemaking, public spaces, sports infrastructure and the lack of empowered city-level institutions.

Delhi master plan review

to 00:37:36 Speaker 1, Speaker 3

Speaker 3 described the master plan as a major shift toward regeneration and densification within Delhi’s existing political boundaries. The discussion covered projected population growth, housing needs, transit-oriented development, UER 2, private-sector incentives, KPIs and gaps in detailed local-area planning.

Private, public and community roles in urban improvement

to 00:56:46 Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3, Speaker 4, Speaker 5

Speaker 5 cited examples of private or joint action in heritage, airport and pavement improvements. Speaker 3 described citizen-led tree planting along Aurobindo Marg. Speaker 2 argued that philanthropy has a limited supplementary role; city-scale solutions need project-based financing, capable municipal institutions, coordination and higher resident contributions to local services.

Culture, shared assets and closing commitments

to 01:07:51 Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3, Speaker 4, Speaker 5

Speaker 4 described culture and recreation as infrastructure constrained mainly by a lack of physical venues. Speaker 3 called for breaking down isolated neighborhood silos, sharing existing public and institutional assets, and using technology to improve access. Panelists gave broad commitments to collaboration, accountability and impact measurement.

Fireside discussion: development beyond project boundaries

to 01:26:43 Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 4

Speaker 2 described Max Estates’ wellbeing-oriented development philosophy and a 5% budget allocation for improvements beyond a project boundary. Discussion focused on sanitation in a nearby settlement, government support, execution challenges, citywide air and water issues, walkability and the need for broader developer participation.

Closing and planned follow-up

to 01:27:43 Speaker 1, Speaker 2

Speaker 1 thanked Pafi and participants, committed ULI to continuing the partnership and stated that a white paper would be published and circulated. Speaker 1 also said ULI would engage government, developers and other stakeholders, with a next convening anticipated at the ULI Annual Meeting in Delhi.

Important questions

What should be better in Delhi/NCR in five years? — asked by Speaker 1
Answered Participants prioritized clean air, water, public transport, affordable housing, waste management, walkability, last-mile connectivity, quality public spaces, accountable governance and stronger local planning.
Can businesses, public agencies and communities practically share responsibility for improving a district if government does not resolve all problems? — asked by Speaker 1
Partially answered Speaker 5 said there are clear opportunities and cited Red Fort, Delhi AeroCity and pavement examples; Speaker 2 said such efforts can supplement but not replace city-scale government functions.
Can philanthropic capital be harnessed for urban improvements that may not otherwise be funded? — asked by Speaker 1
Answered Speaker 2 said philanthropy can add to the solution at neighborhood scale but cannot solve problems of citywide scale; capital is generally not the central constraint when projects are clearly structured.
What role do culture and social spaces play in making urban change happen? — asked by Speaker 1
Answered Speaker 4 said culture, demand and distribution channels exist, but physical cultural infrastructure is missing; public spaces and social infrastructure support livability and community.
What could be better in Delhi in the next five years? — asked by Speaker 1
Answered Speaker 2 emphasized intention, civic responsibility and education; later identified air and water as the most important citywide issues, alongside walkability and easier use of public space.
How should the institutional framework for broader urban improvement be structured? — asked by Speaker 1
Not answered Speaker 2 said he was not equipped to specify the framework, while stressing that individual initiatives alone cannot address citywide air and water issues.

Important numbers & facts

90 years — Speaker 1 described ULI as a 90-year-old education and research not-for-profit organization.
45,000 members globally — Speaker 1 stated ULI has about 45,000 members globally.
about four years — Speaker 1 said ULI has been present in India for about four years.
about 200 members — Speaker 1 stated that ULI India has about 200 members from the built-environment community.
about 800 districts — Speaker 1 said India is organized in about 800 districts.
600 pages — Speaker 1 and Speaker 3 referred to reading 600 pages of the Delhi master plan; Speaker 3 later clarified the document was 1,247 pages, with the first 647 in Hindi.
1,247 pages — Speaker 3 said the master plan is 1,247 pages, with the first 647 pages in Hindi.
15 years — Speaker 3 said she had run her architecture, interiors, master-planning and landscape studio for the past 15 years.
3.2 crore by 2047 — Speaker 3 said the master plan projects the NCT of Delhi population rising to 3.2 crore by 2047.
40 lakh new homes — Speaker 3 said the master plan calls for 40 lakh new homes within the existing boundaries of Delhi.
200 square kilometers — Speaker 3 described the UER 2 development area as about 200 square kilometers.
5% — In the fireside discussion, Speaker 2 said the project budget was increased by 5% to uplift the external ecosystem outside the development boundary.
more than 30,000,000 — Speaker 2 described Delhi/NCR as a metropolitan area with a population greater than 30 million.
02/16/1718 — Speaker 1 announced that the ULI Annual Meeting in Delhi would take place on 02/16/1718, as stated in the transcript.

Speaker highlights

Speaker 1

Main points

Introduced the ULI-Pafi collaboration and the Delhi 3.0 initiative focused on district-level improvement and public life.
Framed the central question as what should improve in Delhi/NCR over five years.
Facilitated discussion on governance, private-sector responsibility, urban management, culture, civility, air, water and shared public space.
Outlined ULI follow-up through a white paper, stakeholder engagement and a future Delhi convening.

Positions

Urban decisions should be assessed by their effects on everyday public life.
District-scale action can make urban transformation more manageable.
Urban management and civility are important infrastructure-related concerns.
The public and private sectors should collaborate rather than treating government solely as a target of criticism.

Commitments

ULI will publish and circulate a white paper based on the discussion.
ULI will engage government, the wider community and developers on the issues raised.
ULI intends to sustain the conversation through the Delhi District Council and seek a next step at the ULI Annual Meeting in Delhi.

Questions raised

What should be better in Delhi/NCR in five years?
Can businesses, public agencies and communities share responsibility for improving a district?
Can philanthropic capital support unfunded urban improvements?
How should an institutional framework coordinate urban improvement across Delhi/NCR?

Speaker 2

Main points

Gathered audience priorities including transit, affordable housing, waste management, pedestrian infrastructure, last-mile connectivity and water.
Called clean air the top priority, with water close behind, and said the urban crisis already exists.
Argued that the key issue is implementation, coordination and municipal capability rather than lack of capital.
Said philanthropy can add to solutions but cannot resolve urban problems at city scale.
Argued that citizens need to contribute more to local maintenance and services.
In the fireside discussion, described a 5% project-budget allocation for external-area improvement around a Max Estates development and noted execution-capacity challenges.

Positions

The problem is primarily “how” to act, not defining “what” needs to be done.
Capital can be mobilized when needs are structured into clear projects.
State and municipal institutions must do more of the heavy lifting on local urban challenges.
Residents should accept greater responsibility for paying for neighborhood-level service quality.
Air and water are the two most consequential citywide issues.

Commitments

Committed time and collaboration with like-minded people toward shared urban goals.
Stated that Max Estates has allocated 5% of a project budget to uplift the ecosystem outside the development boundary.

Questions raised

Can philanthropic capital realistically fund urban improvements that would otherwise not be funded?
How can ULI and Pafi select one or two changes to pursue?
Who should be responsible for executing broader city improvements?

Speaker 3

Main points

Described herself as an urban designer working between master planning and local lived reality.
Explained the Delhi master plan’s shift toward regeneration, redevelopment, densification and incentives for private participation.
Identified population, housing, TOD and UER 2 implications under the plan.
Warned that the plan lacks detailed policies and sufficient local-area and neighborhood planning.
Advocated measuring impact rather than regulating inputs, and sharing existing urban assets across isolated neighborhoods.

Positions

Master planning must address lived experience at the street and neighborhood level.
Local oversight is necessary to ensure walkability, shade, last-mile connectivity and public realm quality.
Culture is infrastructure and existing school, auditorium and other assets should be shared more effectively.
Urban silos and inward-looking development patterns need to be broken down.

Commitments

Committed to “Measure impact and not regulate.”

Questions raised

How will regeneration, redevelopment, TOD and land-pooling policies be detailed and implemented?
How will local lived experience be protected while densification proceeds?

Speaker 4

Main points

Discussed accidental placemaking through a hospitality business combining community, wellness, culture and hospitality.
Called for more public spaces and sports infrastructure to support communities and wellbeing.
Argued that city-level power should be devolved and tied to accountability.
Said culture, recreation and social infrastructure have demand and content but lack sufficient physical venues.
Called for accountability through available platforms.

Positions

Public spaces make cities more livable and are in short supply.
City-level governance requires empowered and accountable institutions.
Culture and recreation should be recognized as infrastructure.
Delhi needs more contemporary cultural infrastructure.

Commitments

Committed to using available platforms to encourage accountability and ensure that matters are discussed.

Questions raised

How can power be devolved to a level where city leaders can be held accountable?
Can public spaces of the quality created in private placemaking environments be delivered in Delhi’s public realm?

Speaker 5

Main points

Discussed Delhi Airport as an example of infrastructure development that involved relocation and displacement concerns.
Emphasized the human effects of displacement related to transit-oriented development and other projects.
Called for better open and public spaces, including walkable pavements.
Identified fragmented governance across Delhi/NCR as a fundamental issue.
Cited examples of private involvement in Red Fort rejuvenation, Delhi AeroCity and localized urban improvements.
Argued that time-bound events such as the Commonwealth Games can create implementation urgency.

Positions

Infrastructure projects must consider the people displaced by them.
Public spaces used by everyone are more likely to receive better maintenance.
Delhi/NCR needs a more coherent institutional framework.
Government, business and civil society must work together.

Commitments

Committed to the principle that solutions require “Samad Sarkar Bazaar,” involving government, business and civil society.

Questions raised

How can projects relocate or compensate displaced people in ways that work for both residents and the project?
How can private-sector leadership complement public responsibility for city improvement?
How can a cost for delay be created in government implementation?

Follow-ups

Develop detailed implementation policies for master-plan provisions on regeneration, redevelopment, transit-oriented development and land pooling.
Strengthen local-area and neighborhood planning to protect walkability, shade, public-space quality and last-mile connectivity.
Identify a coordination mechanism for Delhi/NCR-wide air, water, waste, flooding and public-realm challenges.
Assess how to build execution capacity for improvements outside private development boundaries. (Speaker 2)
Explore mechanisms for broader developer participation in external-area and neighborhood upliftment. (Speaker 1)
Publish and circulate the proposed Delhi 3.0 white paper and use it in stakeholder engagement. (Speaker 1)