Matthew Gandy calls himself a geographer and an urbanist who writes about cities, landscapes and nature. Last time the professor of cultural and historical geography at Cambridge University visited India — Mumbai, 2007 — it resulted in a very watchable documentary, Liquid India , highlighting the water woes of the metropolis. Nine years later, he is in Chennai, leading the European Research Council project called ‘Rethinking Urban Nature’ on four cities: London, Berlin, Chennai and Tallin. In the context of the December floods that ravaged the southern metro, Gandy shares his first impressions of Chennai. Excerpts:

Why did you choose Chennai?

I wanted to come back to India to do research and wanted to look at a different city. And I was lucky to connect with Indian scholars working on Chennai, and explore the questions I’m interested in — in terms of water infrastructure, urban landscape, nature and biodiversity. The Council, which is funding the project, was keen to have at least one city outside Europe.

We are looking at the idea of urban nature, including the relationships between water and city, urban hydrology — lakes, marshlands — and other distinctive aspects of the city’s typography; and understanding the dynamics of areas that are changing.

So one of the interesting questions for us is how to evaluate Chennai’s biodiversity, and what kind of approach could be used to protect it.

Compared to Mumbai, What are your first impressions of Chennai?

It is smaller; and I would say it is a city that has a more relaxed feel to it. But both cities face parallel questions on the dynamics of development and growth. The intensity of the precipitation that led to the floods in Chennai was a lot less than the one felt in Mumbai in 2005. But for various reasons the impact seems to be much more in Chennai. One of the reasons is that the natural floodplain has greatly reduced, which has weakened the city’s capacity to handle a situation like this. If you look at the records for precipitation, the recent events were not out of line. But the city itself has changed and that is the key thing.

What are your concerns about the development profile of Chennai?

Chennai has an exceptionally high level of biodiversity. There are two groups — the highly protected spaces like the grounds of universities. And then the unprotected public places, like wetlands and marshlands that have high level of biodiversity.

In relation to urbanisation, it (the concern) is the unchecked growth. And there is a danger of not differentiating between the dynamics of growth and the differentiation of people. On one hand, there is the growth that is related to the human need for shelter; and then there are the urban elites, who have different sets of priorities.

Of the two, which is harming the city more?

Of the two, if you are talking about threat to the wetlands and marshland, it is coming from the elite.

What is your view on the city’s biodiversity and the level of research?

One of tricky things is that the focus (of research in Chennai) is overwhelmingly on birds, even though many of these are migratory. So they are not indicative of any spots in the city. It would be interesting to extend the work beyond the birds to parks, insects and amphibians.

There is very little fundamental work and the data that has been produced is fragmented. One interesting challenge for us would be to bring together and produce an atlas of biodiversity, or some other output like the fantastic publications in Berlin; this publication would connect science and public interest.

The two things that we are considering strongly are exploring the urban biodiversity, what that means; and if it can be modified, expanded and challenged. And we are focussing on the specific sites that have high level of biodiversity.

As a community, how can Chennaiites organise themselves?

There is a question of collective memory; and while talking to people who remember how Chennai was, it comes across as a powerful element in trying to conceptualise how a city might be or, what people want a city to be.

There would be a tipping point, when a lot of these spaces what we are talking about like marshlands, will not be there in collective memory. Then it becomes difficult to articulate what Chennai should be. Right now it is powerful. It has to be harnessed to build a vision of the future.

So, what can be done now?

There is no simple solution. What is apparent in the context to recent floods, from also reading local newspapers, is that there has been emphasis on the idea of natural disaster, and individual heroics. But the strategic questions are absent.

From an outsiders’ perspective, it is clearly important to protect the wetland and marshland and what remains of the floodplain. This would need inputs from experts such as engineers and hydrologists to examine the hydrological dynamics of the region and how water flows between water bodies. And serious look is needed into the dynamics of development on low-lying areas, and if that is sustainable.

Around the time Chennai was flooded, some part of the UK were also hit by floods...

It was in northern England. It was controversial. There were agricultural areas that were diverted into residential areas. It was also made worse by the elite middle class’s hunting pursuit. Though water receded, the arguments continued.

In London, too, one of the greatest development pressures is on the floodplains. And London is quite similar to Chennai. It was effectively built on marshes. And much of the city remains low-lying, which are vulnerable to sea-level change, climate change and to floods. In London, too, there is a lack of long-term thinking. For instance, there are talks of building a new airport on the floodplains.

The Thames barrier came up in the 1980s in response to the floods in the 1950s. At the moment it (the barrier) is just holding up. Its use has mushroomed in the last 15 years.

So the structure is under increasing pressure to keep the city safe. Other interesting factor is that there was 30-year gap between the disaster and the opening of the structure. That is a long gap between the problem and the solution.

Related Topics