Case study: Chandigarh
5. Case study: Chandigarh
The limitations of modernist planning
5.1 Headlines
Location
Chandigarh, India, Asia
Key dates
Planned 1947–1951, inaugurated 1953, major construction completed by the 1960s
Key features
Chandigarh exemplifies modernist masterplanning through its sector-based layout, integration of green spaces, and monumental architectural forms.
Key lessons
- Chandigarh demonstrates the value of embedding design quality, green infrastructure, and liveability at the core of urban form.
- Overly deterministic masterplanning can neglect local cultural and climate considerations and restrict possibilities for mixed-land use.
- Chandigarh exemplifies the risks of top-down leadership and the need to balance this with participatory and adaptive structures.
Key recommendations
- National and local governments should ensure strong policy alignment and stable long-term frameworks to support the delivery of new towns and strategic growth areas.
- Masterplanning should incorporate cultural and climate considerations to promote flexibility and resilience in placemaking.
- Governance models for new towns globally should encourage both strategic coordination and opportunities for community participation in shaping long-term development.
5.2 Overview
The Indian city of Chandigarh holds a unique place in the history of urban planning as one of India’s first post-independence planned cities[97]. Replacing the Punjabi capital of Lahore after Partition, Chandigarh became the shared capital of both Punjab and Haryana. When the state was recognised on 1 November 1966, Chandigarh became a Union Territory[98], an administrative arrangement that further amplified its symbolic status. Jawaharlal Nehru, independent India’s first Prime Minister referred to Chandigarh as a “new town, symbolic of the freedom of India unfettered by the traditions of the past, an expression of the nation’s faith in the future”[99].
Chandigarh thus emerged as a statement of postcolonial modernity as opposed to a continuation of more traditional urban forms. Academics have discussed the significance of Chandigarh outside of the Indian planning context and have referred to it as “one of the twentieth century’s globally significant city building experiments”[100].
Two plans were prepared for Chandigarh[101]. The first was prepared by Albert Mayer, an American architect-planner and Polish architect Maciej Nowitzki (more famously known as Nowicki). The second was designed by controversial Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier and his team of Swiss architect Pierre Jeanneret, English architect Maxwell Fry and English architect and town planner Jane Drew. It is thought that the Mayer team were replaced by Le Corbusier due to Nowicki’s death in 1950, along with the increasing value of the American dollar[102].
Despite complexity in the historical and political context of the city and in its planning, Chandigarh was built quickly. It was inaugurated in 1953, with main infrastructure complete by the 1960s[103].
5.3 Planning frameworks
Rooted in Modernist planning ideals, Chandigarh was divided into sectors which contained amenities and promoted walkability while accommodating the automobile[104]. Le Corbusier used the metaphor of the body to describe the layout of the city. The ‘“head’” houses the Capitol Complex with key governmental and administrative buildings; the ‘“heart’” encompasses the commercial Sector 17; and the “lungs” are green spaces integrated throughout the city[105].
Chandigarh is a highly significant case study of a new town, as it demonstrates both the ambitions and limitations of modernist urban planning. While the city is often praised for the clarity of its urban form[106], green spaces[107], and iconic architecture[108], it has been criticised for being culturally dissonant and alienating[109], and lacking the vibrancy of traditional Indian cities. There are considerable factors that limit the transferability of lessons from Chandigarh to many other contexts, namely, its political and historical context, climate, and elements of its planning that are unlikely to be replicated in the present day. However, Chandigarh offers a range of lessons crucial to the development of new towns, such as the risks of overly deterministic masterplanning.
5.4 Governance structures
The governance and implementation of Chandigarh’s plan were closely tied to India’s early post-independence political context. The project was backed by central government and Prime Minister Nehru’s vision of modernisation through planning and architecture. This strong state-led approach enabled fast delivery of infrastructure in Chandigarh. However, it also limited opportunities for local participation and adaptation over time.
Chandigarh exemplifies the modernist planning approaches of its era, where centralised governance and visionary design were seen as vehicles for progress. Its development illustrates both the strengths and constraints of this model. It highlights the need to balance strong, directive leadership with flexibility, inclusivity and sensitivity to local socio-cultural conditions.
5.5 Adaptability and flexibility: Levers and barriers
Chandigarh’s urban planning demonstrates both remarkable achievements and notable limitations. Chandigarh has a sector system of self-contained neighbourhoods which are intended to provide residential, civic, and commercial facilities. Sectors are 800m by 1200m[110] in size, and were designed to be self-sufficient, containing “housing, schools, health centres, places of recreations and worship and a marketplace” [111]. However, the self-sufficiency of sectors has been questioned, as academics have noted that residents are “forced to go elsewhere for their shopping” [112]. The urban environment of Chandigarh is highly organised and contains an “integrated network of seven types of roads” [113].
Despite efforts to keep road networks away from pedestrian routes, the walkability of Chandigarh is problematic. A 2025 study of the central business area, Sector 17, and adjacent sectors 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 21, 22, and 23 found that there were significant obstacles to walkability[114]. Some of these obstacles are directly related to the planning and the maintenance of the city. This includes:
“obstructed and poorly marked zebra crossings, poorly maintained, discontinuous and obstructed sidewalks (footpaths), single-use zoning with scattered services, and limited crossing time intervals”[115].
Given these issues Chandigarh does not fit a 15-minute city structure, although plans are proposed to improve its walkability[116].
Despite original visions of creating an “equitable, walkable environment in the city”, Chandigarh has transformed into a car-centric environment that discourages walking[117]. Chandigarh’s functional zoning and dispersed sectoral layout has contributed to a high degree of car dependency. Chandigarh now has the highest density of car ownership in India, which has put a strain on the city’s road infrastructure[118].
In this sense, the case study of Chandigarh highlights that purpose-built planned cities can fail in meeting their original goals. Although its modernist place design was shaped around car use, Chandigarh’s situation cannot be solely attributed to design. It reflects a range of factors, including car ownership as a status symbol - which makes sense considering the relatively high incomes of the city’s residents.
Chandigarh’s planners placed great emphasis on the city’s “lungs”. This is a network of parks including the 8-kilometre Leisure Valley, a linear green corridor running through the city. Despite population growth which has increased pressure on parks[119], most neighbourhoods in the city are “within a reasonable proximity to a well-maintained green space”[120]. Academics have praised Chandigarh for “excelling in integrating green spaces into its urban fabric” and have discussed how its “green corridor enhances large-scale connectivity and serves as a vital recreational and ecological spine”[121]. Over time, these lungs have expanded, with recent data showing that nearly 50 percent of Chandigarh’s territory is now under green cover[122]. This plays a crucial role in regulating air quality, mitigating heat, and improving liveability.
It appears that both the apparent successes and challenges in Chandigarh are deeply entwined with modernist planning and spatial logic. While Chandigarh has achieved its goal of creating a legible urban form with integrated green spaces, the highly structured environment has produced a range of problems.
5.6 Thematic discussion
New towns as political and ideological projects
Chandigarh has been understood as an ideological project in a myriad of ways. Firstly, Chandigarh’s symbolic weight as one of the first postcolonial Indian cities is significant. Chandigarh was to be a “tangible metaphor for Nehru’s modern India”[123]. Academics have also explored how Chandigarh “introduced to India a new urbanity”, a “breathtaking handling of urban form and space”[124]. Chandigarh stands as a typical example of modernist planning, expressing rationality and order through its gridded sectors, functional zoning, and hierarchical road system[125].
Le Corbusier’s Capitol Complex (Legislative Assembly, High Court, Secretariat) uses monumental, geometric, reinforced-concrete forms to convey civic authority[126]. The identity of Chandigarh is often associated with these sculptural buildings, and of housing designed by Drew, Fry and Jennerret[127].
British and American approaches to planning and neighbourhood design, along with the Garden City Movement, can be understood as key influences for Chandigarh[128]. Jane Drew’s work in Chandigarh often took a more "anthropological approach”[129] than the city is known for, and it is thought that her work is often “overshadowed by machismo and more flamboyant” designs in Chandigarh[130]. Drew also undertook “extensive consultation”[131] with local people during the design. Drew is credited for her work on Sector 22 which is comprised of mostly “homely” and “practical” architecture[132].
Functionality, adaptability, and the future of new towns
There are several areas to highlight on the adaptability and functionality of Chandigarh. The modernist design of the city has been seen as restrictive to local businesses in recent years[133]. Academics have described how Chandigarh’s “austere modernist facades, set designs and prescribed building use” have been “met with resistance by shopkeepers” [134]. These buildings often limit opportunities for “individual expression” [135], and have been described as “functionally obsolete” [136]. Due to elements of Chandigarh’s planning that have not allowed for adaptability through the years, while the city is “iconic”, its masterplan is “static” [137].
Yet, Chandigarh has a vibrant street life which has emerged through the everyday appropriation of space[138]. This takes many forms in Chandigarh: “vendors attach cloths and rope to built structures to form their own makeshift enclosures, sidewalks and passageways are appropriated as commercial spaces for selling food or produce”, and “pavement curbs are taken from the street and stacked to form work surfaces and vending stalls” [139]. Through these practices, residents actively adapt the environment to meet social, economic and cultural needs. In this sense, Chandigarh demonstrates both the limits of modernist rationalism and the creativity of urban life in “modifying the built environment” [140].
