Wonderful article - I had no idea that Le Corbusier was involved in "modernizing" an Indian city.
But I feel like some maps and aerial views and wider shots would've illustrated some of the higher-level discussions for a Westerner like me.
I kept craving more visuals to correspond to what the author was talking about. Often the phots they did provide contrasted quite strongly with the descriptions - like when discussing the upper-class Sector 23 and the more cosmopolitan Sector 17 (these names are almost cartoonishly dystopian) the photos seem to be almost reversed, since the Sector 23 photo looks much more run-down contrasted against the open and polished plaza shown of Sector 17.
I looked at the city on Google maps; the street grid is prominent but I didn't feel like I good a good idea of how the city is laid out into sectors as the article mentioned. One thing I did notice were some blocks of the city that did not conform to the overall grid (there's a prominent one in the southwest of the central city). Does anyone know if these were instances of post-Corbusier demolition and rebuilding, or were these part of the original plan? It would be interesting to know how much the city has changed sense it was designed and built (in the 60s I guess?).
But I feel like some maps and aerial views and wider shots would've illustrated some of the higher-level discussions for a Westerner like me.
I kept craving more visuals to correspond to what the author was talking about. Often the phots they did provide contrasted quite strongly with the descriptions - like when discussing the upper-class Sector 23 and the more cosmopolitan Sector 17 (these names are almost cartoonishly dystopian) the photos seem to be almost reversed, since the Sector 23 photo looks much more run-down contrasted against the open and polished plaza shown of Sector 17.