The Delhi Urban Art Commission’s review of two proposed Jawaharlal Nehru University buildings has exposed a familiar weakness in institutional construction: a project can be ready for formal-stage approval while still leaving basic questions about movement, parking, drainage, utilities and architectural coordination unresolved. DUAC has asked the Central Public Works Department to revise its proposals for a lecture hall complex and an e-learning and incubation centre before the designs are considered further.
The objections recorded in the minutes of DUAC’s October 15 meeting are not limited to façade treatment or presentation quality. They reach into how students and faculty would move through the buildings, where vehicles would be stored, how much open and landscaped space would remain, how stormwater would be managed, and whether the architectural drawings accurately represent the proposed structures. Together, they show that approval-stage scrutiny is also a test of whether a building has been planned as part of a functioning campus rather than as an isolated object.
The two proposals were submitted by CPWD for formal-stage approval. In the lecture hall complex, DUAC called for improved planning of assembly spaces, corridors and exits to support smoother movement and safer dispersal of students and faculty. The commission also noted that the design did not adequately provide places where students could gather or wait between classes.
That gap matters because lecture halls generate concentrated movement. Students do not simply arrive for a class and disappear after it ends. They queue, wait, change rooms, gather in groups and move through corridors at similar times. If those transition spaces are not planned properly, congestion can shift from classrooms into circulation areas and exits. DUAC’s observations therefore treat movement as a design and safety issue, not merely as a question of architectural appearance.
The parking proposals provide a second window into the wider planning problem. The lecture hall complex proposes 66 equivalent car spaces, while the e-learning and incubation centre proposes 59 equivalent car spaces. Both schemes rely entirely on surface parking. DUAC cautioned that this arrangement could consume open and landscaped areas and affect stormwater management, with implications for urban flooding. It advised the project team to explore basement or stilt parking instead.
The concern is significant because parking is often treated as a requirement to be fitted into a site after the principal building form has been established. In these proposals, the location and scale of parking could influence several other functions at once: the amount of permeable or landscaped ground, the quality of pedestrian movement, the visual character of the campus and the site’s ability to handle rainwater. DUAC’s response effectively links vehicle storage to landscape and drainage rather than treating the two as separate planning decisions.
The issue also illustrates why equivalent car spaces are more than a numerical compliance measure. The figures indicate the parking capacity proposed, but they do not by themselves explain how vehicles would enter and leave, how pedestrians would cross the site, or how the surface would interact with open areas during heavy rain. Those questions remain part of the revision exercise. The supplied material does not establish whether the revised plans will retain, reduce or relocate the proposed capacity.
## JNU buildings and the problem of coordinated design
DUAC also found discrepancies between the architectural drawings and the three-dimensional views submitted for both projects. It described the submissions as unsatisfactory and said the quality of the scanned documents made proper assessment difficult. This is an administrative detail with practical consequences. A reviewing authority cannot reliably assess massing, façades, access, parking relationships or service arrangements if the drawings and visualisations do not correspond clearly.
In a large institutional project, coordination between drawings and visual representations is part of design control. Inconsistencies can obscure how a building will meet the ground, where entrances are located, how shaded or covered areas function and whether service elements have been integrated into the architecture. DUAC’s demand for better-quality and consistent submissions indicates that the approval process depends not only on the design itself but also on the clarity of the information presented for review.
The commission’s questions about services reinforce this point. It sought details of air-conditioning systems and chiller plants, as well as plans for concealing plumbing lines, rainwater pipes, diesel generator sets and other utilities. It also asked for clarity on the location of the electrical substation and pump room, and requested details of toilets and guard houses in both buildings.
These elements are rarely the most visible part of a project when a proposal is presented. They are, however, essential to how a building operates after construction. Chillers require space and access. Electrical and pumping systems need safe, maintainable locations. Rainwater pipes and plumbing require coordinated routes. Generator sets and other service infrastructure can affect noise, visibility and the relationship between the building and its surroundings. When such systems are resolved late, they may appear as exposed additions, consume usable space or require changes to the façade and landscape.
The review therefore raises an institutional design question: at what stage are operational systems being integrated into the architectural proposal? DUAC’s observations do not establish that the services were absent from the design, but they show that the information supplied was insufficient for the commission to assess them fully. The requirement for revised details brings these normally hidden systems into the formal approval process.
## Surface parking, open space and stormwater
The parking objection is also a reminder that campus projects have their own urban footprint. Although the buildings are located within an institutional setting, their paved areas, vehicle movement and drainage arrangements affect the immediate environment. Surface parking can reduce the space available for trees and landscape, while large paved areas can alter how rainwater moves across a site. DUAC explicitly connected the proposed surface parking to open areas, landscaping and stormwater management.
The commission’s suggestion of basement or stilt parking is not a final direction on the project’s design, but it identifies the trade-off that the revised plans must address. Moving parking below or under the building could preserve more ground-level space, but it would also require its own decisions about access, structure, ventilation, drainage and cost. The source material does not provide the project budgets or technical assessments needed to compare these options. What is clear is that parking cannot be evaluated independently from the campus landscape and water-management strategy.
The same integrated approach appears in DUAC’s questions about the proposed pedestrian ramp to the upper floors of the lecture hall complex. The commission questioned its need given the availability of lifts. This does not amount to a rejection of accessible movement; rather, it shows that the design team has been asked to explain how circulation elements relate to one another and whether each component has been resolved appropriately within the building.
For a public educational facility, such questions have a direct user dimension. Students and faculty will experience the building through entrances, corridors, waiting areas, lifts, ramps, toilets and exits rather than through its façade alone. The commission’s comments place these everyday interactions within the scope of formal design review.
## Façades, artwork and the public face of institutions
The e-learning and incubation centre also drew specific comments on its pergola over the parking area and on artwork proposed for the building façades. DUAC sought details of the pergola and advised that the artwork be shifted to eye-level locations or landscaped areas. It added that the designs would require prior approval.
These observations show that façade design was not being assessed only for visual style. The location of artwork affects how it is encountered by users, while a pergola over parking has implications for shade, visibility and the relationship between the building and the parking area. By asking for these elements to be reconsidered in relation to eye-level spaces and landscaping, DUAC has directed attention towards how people experience the campus at ground level.
This is an important distinction in institutional architecture. A building may be technically complete and visually distinctive while remaining difficult to navigate or disconnected from the spaces around it. DUAC’s comments on artwork, parking structures and landscaped areas indicate that the review is concerned with the public realm immediately outside the buildings as much as with the buildings’ elevations.
## What happens next in the approval process
The proposals are not described as rejected. They remain under consideration, subject to the architects addressing DUAC’s observations and submitting revised plans. The next formal milestone is therefore the resubmission of the two designs with clearer architectural documents, further information on services, revised treatment of parking and landscape, and responses to the commission’s circulation and façade-related concerns.
The case offers a useful view of how urban design oversight operates within a public construction project. CPWD is the submitting agency, JNU is the institutional setting and DUAC is the reviewing commission. Each plays a different role in moving a proposal from design to approval. The meeting minutes show that the approval process is not limited to checking whether a building can be placed on a site. It also tests whether the proposal explains how the building will function, how its supporting systems will be accommodated and how it will affect shared campus space.
The evidence currently confirms that both projects require substantial revisions before DUAC will consider them further. It does not establish the final design, construction schedule, revised parking arrangement or eventual approval outcome. Those developments will depend on the plans submitted by the architects and the commission’s subsequent review. Until then, the JNU proposals remain a case study in why the quality of institutional buildings is determined not only by their intended use, but by the coordination of movement, landscape, water, services and public-facing design before construction begins.
