Ambition vs execution: Smart cities stumble as deadlines loom

Hubballi: Until a couple of years ago, Mangaluru’s Gujjarkere, with a history of 1,800 years, remained neglected. The surface of the water was marred by a layer of water hyacinth. Several administrative bodies, including the minor irrigation and city corporation departments, tried to rejuvenate the lake but were only partially successful. 

In 2022, the Mangaluru Smart City Limited (MSCL) began its rejuvenation efforts. The MSCL spent Rs 4.37 crore to desilt the lake and develop a walking track, children’s play area and seating arrangements. The iconic lake was finally restored and was available to the community to use and enjoy. However, even this was short-lived.
“The lake was only given a facelift. Even today, sewage water is released into the lake. Rather than rejuvenating the lake ecologically, the priority was to make it visually appealing,” says Nemu Kottari, the secretary of the Gujjarkere Teertha Samrakshana Vedike. 

The Smart Cities Mission was launched in 2015 to improve citizens’ quality of life and drive economic growth through smart technology and area-specific development. The mission is aimed at bringing innovative solutions to water supply, electricity, sanitation, urban mobility, housing, IT connectivity, governance, environment, safety, health and education sectors. However, the projects have received mixed responses. 

While smart city planning authorities are generally able to identify a problem, either the implementation is delayed or the solutions are not suitable or sustainable. As a result, the projects have not always had the desired outcomes.

In Karnataka, smart city projects are underway in seven cities — Belagavi, Mangaluru, Tumakuru, Shivamogga, Hubballi-Dharwad, Davangere and Bengaluru. 

The delays and mismanagement have had a real-time impact on various stakeholders. In Hubballi, for instance, vegetable vendor Lakshman Bhandari has witnessed mismanagement and delays firsthand. He was forced to vacate his stall at the Janatha Bazaar, despite having been there for the last 28 years. The relocation was put into force as a part of an effort to revamp the Bazaar under the smart city project.  

Even though Bhandari was not fully convinced, after multiple public consultations, he and other small-time vendors agreed to relocate temporarily. 

However, once the newly constructed building was available for occupancy, officials left it unused, and Lakshman had to continue selling vegetables at the Janatha Bazaar and not the new building.  

The smart city planning authority is awaiting instructions from the government to allocate shops. To increase revenue, the government intends to auction storefronts. 

“After being displaced for three years, our income dwindled drastically and a majority of us are not in a position to participate in the auctioning process,” he says.

An ambitious riverfront project in Shivamogga has also suffered the same fate. The Rs 102 crore project was aimed to beautify the banks of River Tunga for public recreational use. Even two years since its inauguration, no agency has come forward to manage the facilities and maintain the grounds. As a result, the public has not been able to use the park. 

Rapid urbanisation has made mega projects necessary, according to urban planners.

“Our cities are struggling to cater to the requirements of the residents and other stakeholders due to stretched capacities and gaps in capabilities. An urban programme such as the smart cities mission is expected to address these challenges,” says Santosh Nargund, head of participatory governance at the Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy.

Nearly 41% of India’s population will live in urban areas by 2030, emphasises the World Bank’s 2023 report.

The smart city project was an opportunity for 100 cities to leapfrog into the future with an investment of Rs 1,000 crore each. The project did not take off on the desired trajectory as it lacked clarity in definition, created parallel pathways in city administration and due to flawed selection processes.

Bengaluru-based urban policy expert Matthew Idiculla says that this lack of clarity affected the project. “By allowing cities the freedom to define their own understanding of ‘smartness’, the mission gave greater agility and inclusion to the local bodies. The Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that was formed to implement the projects could have implemented city-specific projects. However, on the contrary, as these SPV were too autonomous, in some cities they executed projects that were not the demand of the public,” he says. SPVs plan, appraise, approve, release funds, implement, manage, operate, monitor and evaluate the smart city development projects. Each smart city has an SPV which is headed by a full-time CEO and with the nominees of Central Government, State Government and Urban Local Body (ULB) on its Board.

Take for example Tumakuru’s dedicated vending zone, executed by the Tumakuru Smart City Limited. “Against much opposition from the hawkers and vendors, the Smart City officials developed the dedicated vending zone near Kothitopu Road, on the outskirts of the town in 2022. As the footfall was less, the vending zone still wears a deserted look,” says Subramanya N K, an activist. He says many projects were implemented without an overall blueprint.  

Karnataka’s first puzzle parking system built in Hubballi too remains idle. Conceived and constructed by the Hubballi-Dharwad Smart City Limited (HDSCL) at Rs 4.59 crore, the parking lot can accommodate at least 36 cars. With ample parking space available nearby for free, the paid puzzle parking is not put into use. 

The implementation of the public bicycle share (PBS) system across all seven cities has also received a lot of criticism from the public as there are few dedicated cycle lanes in these cities.

“Before starting PBS, the administration should have identified ideal locations where the public could have used these cycles. The 20-odd stands that Davangere Smart City Limited has created are not in crowded locations,” says Raghunath, a resident of the city.  

Selection processes 

The Smart Cities Limited is also accused of selecting projects that were legally and environmentally challenging to implement.

Take for example the Rs 185 crore Waterfront Development project, considered to be an important project of the MSCL. The Forest Department did not approve the construction of a bridge as it could impact the ecologically sensitive regions which housed mangroves. While the deadline for the project is fast approaching (March 2025), work has not commenced yet.

“The waterfront project is a vital clog in the overall schemes of developing Mangaluru city. The widening of roads and recreation aspects would have added value to city life. We received the coastal regulation zone clearance, although a bit late,” says MSCL General Manager (Technical) Arun Prabha.

For city corporations that always worked with constrained budgets and limited human resources, implementation of projects of this scale and in restricted areas was a challenge. City corporations were also faced with legal hurdles, delaying the tendering process.   

Jaya Dhindaw, Executive Program Director, Sustainable Cities at World Resources Institute (WRI) India says that while the intent and concept of smart cities was good, the delivery has had its fair share of challenges. “Most cities had limited human resources and technical capacities and were not able to absorb the funding provided. Land issues and multisectorality of projects, which required close coordination among agencies and stakeholders, resulted in implementation challenges,” she says.

Experts also point out that city planners purchased several technologies, and created assets without developing the resources to share this knowledge with city corporations. ULBs, already dealing with huge vacancies, were tasked with maintaining, managing and updating these ‘assets’ by smart city planning authorities without instructions or resources. 

Take the Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC), a project under Bengaluru Smart City, for instance. The ICCC aims to coordinate citizen grievances towards resolution through a single helpline. The smart city planners also set up Internet of Things assets. The control centre currently functions with contract employees hired using the smart city funds.

The corporation does not have the funds and expertise to manage these assets. So, what is the future of the systems and projects that were created under the Smart City Mission?

While officials are unclear, BBMP chief commissioner, Tushar Girinath, issued a reassurance, saying that the control centre would continue to function. “At the moment, some officers continue to hold posts in the smart city to ensure continuity in operations. The BBMP will handle the ICCC once it is handed over to us,” he adds.  

A lack of coordination between departments is another reason that has subdued the implementation of the projects. In many cities, ‘dual power centres’ were created to implement the projects.

State Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh summarises some issues that corporations are facing. “The quality of implementation of several projects is not up to the mark. There are also allegations of misappropriation of funds. So, an inquiry has been ordered. A committee headed by the Urban Development Secretary will conduct the investigation and present a report in the next three months. Based on this, action will be taken against erring officials and elected representatives,” he says.

Suresh says he is disappointed that discretionary funds under the scheme were used for roads, drainage and garden work. Such work, he says, could have been undertaken under regular state government funds.

“By March 31, 2025, the city corporations and other parent departments will take over all the assets created by Smart City. We are still working on revenue models to ensure these assets are maintained well,” Suresh says. He is non-committal on the future of staff and the functioning of the smart city bodies after the deadline.

Sobia Rafiq, a Bengaluru-based urban planner who helped plan projects for various smart cities, including Tumkur and Thiruvananthapuram, says that these projects have accelerated existing ones.

“In Bengaluru, they integrated some of the works including the TenderSURE roads into smart city projects. In Tumakuru, the local body was already trying to renovate Amanikere, which was accelerated when it went into the fold of smart city projects,” she adds.

The upsides

Sobia says the smart city concept was key in overcoming political and bureaucratic hurdles and implementing innovative projects faster. “Funds in many cities may not have been effectively spent for various reasons, including administrative challenges. Rather than thinking about what they have not done, analysing what they have achieved despite all the roadblocks would be a fair way to assess the usefulness,” she adds.

She advocated for the continuation of SPVs. “If smart city projects were to be handed over to municipalities, we may not find them equipped enough with the right skills. All the trained people and infrastructure created over the last few years will get lost in the process.” In Shivamogga, a few staff members have already been terminated. The Urban Development Minister minister says they have not yet made plans for the transition. 

Ashwija B V, Tumakuru City Corporation Commissioner and Managing Director of TSCL, says the project ensured smooth movement of files and implemented the projects within stipulated time frames. “City corporations like Tumakuru do not get Rs 1,000 crore to implement projects often. There was a free flow of funds and required staff and we could implement projects on time while maintaining the quality of the project,” she says. 

The Standing Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs submitted a report in February 2024 appreciating the efforts made by SPVs in expediting the implementation of projects. It recommended that a plan be made to strengthen ULBs’ capabilities in small cities. The committee also recommended that the central government assist states in need of organisational restructuring and capacity building to improve the financial mechanisms of these states.

(With inputs from Naina J A in Mangaluru; Nrupathunga S K in Davangere; Shree D N in Bengaluru) 

The Tunga riverfront project implemented under the Smart City Mission is deserted today due to issues with its management; (Right) The puzzle parking system in Hubballi constructed under the SCM has no takers.