top of page

Our Recent Posts

Archive

Tags

(picture courtesy Indian Express)

Ms. Kusuma

DD Cubbon Park

Bangalore 560001

Dear Madam:

Subject: Request for Removal of LED Signboards at Cubbon Park

Citizens of Bangalore, and particularly aficionados of Cubbon park watched with great concern the emergence of 50 LED signboards spaced across Cubbon Park roads. None of us in the public have had any information or notice it was coming up last year - or any idea of why it was constructed in the first place, what purpose it serves, or what basis it was decided to insert the signage at all. Several of us had emailed our objections.

We understand that BESCOM set this up only on a pilot or test project under its Smart Light Campaign for a period of a year in June 2019 , so we are happy to share our views on its continuance. We do not want this. In addition, given the BBMP ruling on signage and outdoor hoardings, even though these LED boards are for a purely informative and internal point of view , we do feel that that should have gone through the proper procedure before setting it up in the first place.

What is important to note is this signage is poorly designed and set up, hurtful to the eye, visually anesthetic and unappealing, pose a serious traffic hazard as it distracts vehicle drivers with its LED flash and distracting moving visuals. From the flora and fauna point of view it is extremely negative in impact. Lastly Parks worldwide have disallowed or even banned such outdoor signage and particularly LED and wireless, so this is a vast departure from Horticulture park global standards.

The annexure below has initial inputs from experts on the subject, including planners, scientists from IISc, biologists and heritage experts.  We would earnestly request you to heed their considered view and do use this lock down period to have them immediately removed, and beauty and ecology restored in the park.

As we understand, these signboards have been done by kind courtesy Bescom as a pilot project for the period of one year in June 2019, and since the general public opinion has been quite negative about this, may we request you to please have this removed at the earliest, before the testing period elapses.

Try as we might, we have seen no upside at all about having these boards at the park, and neither has the signage messaging been either positively observed or actioned. We know your respect and regard for citizen views, scientifically backed claims and are happy to also connect a delegation of experts and share this point of view in person at the earliest. Once again, our deepest thanks for all the wonderful work done at Cubbon Park and we hope to continue to partner and support you in any way we can.

Thanking you

Yours Sincerely

Priya Chetty-Rajagopal

Cc: Mr. RK Kataria, Secretary, Horticulture

Cc: Dr Jagdish JD Horticulture Dept, Lalbagh

Cc: Mr. Rajesh Gowda, MD BESCOM

Cc: Ms. Revathy Ashok, MD, BPAC

Few Expert Views on LED Signboards at Cubbon Park :

Prof TV Ramachandra , Professor & Ecologist, IISc

This would impact the ecology evident from the nocturnal animals’ response to the lights. There are studies highlighting the pollinator's (bees, etc.) mortality due to light pollution so also birds, etc.

Decision makers need to understand the implications of mismanaging the nature..

Laxmi Nagaraj , Urban Planner, California

Strict regulations on not having LED signs in areas that are ‘heritage’ spaces. Cubbon Park is a heritage park with natural and scenic beauty in abundance and these signs are absolutely not compatible with the surroundings and is therefore an eye sore. Whatever the sign displays can be accommodated on the existing signage that is sensitive to the surroundings. Regulations PROHIBITING such signs should be immediately drafted and enforced. The LED signs are almost as large as billboards which are strictly prohibited in scenic surroundings.

Prof Yashaswini Sharma, Architect and Conservationist

Long time exposure to blue peaks and light emitted by LED can cause retinal damage. Why would the Government install LED sign displays in a green heritage precinct meant to benefit health? It is also a distraction for smaller wildlife that thrive in the park.

Sreedevi Changali , Architect & Conservationist , MasonInk

Yes, they are terrible and without doubt an eye sore. Could probably check what purpose they are serving and integrate it better with the existing signage (done by a company called sensing local).

Gopi Sundar, Scientist, Nature Conservation Foundation -

1. They are far too bright and damage sensitive corneas

2. Their wavelength is very limited so they don’t attract insects etc which a lot of animals can feed on

3. The “green” value of LED is only with respect to electricity usage and that too only if intensity and wattage is low so it does not damage eyes.

Global park standards:

Prohibited signs

· Neon signs, LED or similar accent lighting not permitted

· Signs which emit audible noise, door or visible matter not permitted

· A sign or illumination that causes glare not permitted

· A sign that emits flashing or intermittent lights not permitted

Billboard prohibition

· Excessive or Inadequately controlled signs endanger the unique character or scenic beauty

· The proliferation in number, increase in size, use of special effects in message presentation distracts

Therefore, all the above type of billboards and signs shall be prohibited

Some useful links


The zonal regulations amendment 2020 is an important step for heritage for the state overall . However for Bangalore the impact is different given point 2 which clearly establishes BDA as the LPA ie local planning authority via the defunct  arts commission to advise the heritage of the city as the appointed Heritage Conservation Committee .


Our Informal Zoom conversation with Shantala, director of Town planning and several others in the #HeritageBeku brought a fair amount of clarity and insights into both. Essentially until BDA sets up the  The arts commission as the de facto Bangalore heritage conservation committee, there is no advisory Heritage body and direction. . In addition the presence of BBMP as a further civic body controlling Heritage has to be noted. The new BBMP Act which has been put up to the council specifically has #Heritage related regulations as well. Please look at our blog post on this.


In whatever capacity, and however advisory a position, we are moving towards HCCs or heritage conservation committee‘s across Karnataka land planning authorities, and this will have a positive impact on conserving heritage, given that we have had no coverage on heritage protection since 2009.


So what does it mean for Bangalore’s heritage ? What is it that #HeritageBeku needs to do to forge forward and build on several conversations on the need for heritage regulations for the city? 

The first option is to sit tight and wait for something to evolve  in the fullness of time based on many recommendation made by an Intach or Heritage Beku and hoping to be right. The second is to work through from the political framework and share our concerns  with conversations with prominent influencers within the system. Creating a buy in to the cultural impact, heritage economy and creating a state heritage pride, maybe. Hopefully that point, the arts commission despite it’s advisory status can move forward. None of these perspectives are mutually exclusive and can be done in parallel too . The third option is I think the #HeritageBeku way.


One create an online petition as a placeholder for the concerns we have on the structure and future of heritage law in the city. Second set up a series of conversations with critical bureaucrats like the BBMP, BDA, heritage under tourism, Kannada and culture so as to get a concerted perspective on what the departmental drivers and concerns are, thereby arriving at some kind of common platform to build on going forward. Third to work on a collaborative online or physical  workshop with these stakeholders, bringing bringing them on to the same platform and create a common fabric and buy-in  for working together. Hopefully from here we can create a joint action plan. Next is to use the one month we have till the 15th May  to file a wish list and objections under the 13 E  of the Karnataka Town  and country planning rules so that the government records , and maybe internalises & implements citizens and civil societies view. Working with a pro-heritage media is important but we also know that , sometimes these things work better behind the scenes and low key , rather than the us vs them confrontational approach that tends to get  highlighted in media. I may be wrong and I’m happy to hear otherwise.


What we must remember is that overall this is a step in the right direction however late it might be. For some time I think that’s  #HeritageBeku Should take a supportive, collaborative and building block approach, working with govt  to create a buy in  and a collective vision. We have enough that we can build on in terms of granularity, but we must keep in mind that the need to JOINTLY move forward from the Bbmp and BDA in sync is critical. Otherwise this can move like the RMP 31 objections to the back drawer..


Your thoughts would be appreciated.


The Urban Heritage Guidelines in this part of the New BBMP Act tabled in the Assembly today is of interest- and in fact raised our eyebrows. Further reading in context of the larger provisions of the Act and a bit further fine tuning is required. However, our first-off, rough cut thoughts are as under :


  1. It seems to have paid attention to the detailed #HeritageBeku response to the RMP31 .

  2. some specific deletions need to be highlighted.

  3. the focus on heritage incentives is laudable

  4. the option of the city corporation having first right of refusal to heritage properties is a proactive step showing both interest and interest

  5. How this is dovetailed into the KMC Town & Country Planning Act seems unclear

  6. The setting up of the Heritage Conservation Committee is KEY, a step in the right direction. This is a critical framework for city heritage. However, it’s composition, structure, independence and duties need a more detailed study and further update as required

  7. the focus is understandably skewed more towards built heritage.

  8. How this plan dovetails with the Heritage Precincts outlined in the Revised Master Plan 2031 needs further detailing and understanding.

  9. We would like a clear discussion with BBMP commissioner to understand this better

Blog: Blog
bottom of page