Upon visiting the
colony, one would see its strong visual presence haphazard along the sloped
surface which earlier used to be paddy fields. The complex consists of 676
units built on 50 acres of land, and today is home to an estimate of 5000
residents with an average of 7 people per unit. Over its span of nine years, it
has seen constant wears and tears of its infrastructure, services and thus the
quality of living standard of the residents. This only indicates a flaw in the
whole process of policy making, design and implementation, subsidization and management
of the project itself.
The complex consists of
basic amenities including a basketball court, multipurpose hall, clinic, ATM
machines, internet cafe, a police headquarter, and a vegetable market. Some of
the buildings have commercialised ground floor with shops providing convenience
household items. A large open space serves as a ground for various group
activities that may take place at times such as religious congregations. Often
times it is inhabited by children playing or groups of youth hanging out. Roads
move about within the complex as and wherever is needed to provide direct
connectivity to all buildings, and this interlinking of roads seems to have
destroyed any space left for greeneries within the compound.
A
typical block is a G+2+attic structure with 3 units per floor with each unit
that comprise 2 bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen and a toilet. An average income
person visiting these household would notice at first glance the compactness of
the rooms. And with the family size of almost 8 members, the amount of space
available is almost claustrophobic. But accepting the fact that space cost them
money, having larger rooms or more toilets is hardly their concern when
compared to lack of basic necessities such as adequate water supply. Thus, a
lower rent for the flats is but little consolation.
This shortage of water
supply has been there since its beginning, and the city municipality has
pointed to the internal system leading to this problem. For allocating water,
the colony is divided into five zones and water is provided accordingly to each
of the tenant once a day. Also since there is no water storage tanks on the
attic of the buildings the water will flow to the upper floors only after the
demand on the ground floor is met. This causes upper floor tenants to usually
face this crunch. Another reason that was pointed out was that in the infrastructure
plan, the buildings were constructed before any water supply system.
Another complaint that
has caused confusion is regarding the type of residents that live in the
complex. The government’s intention of providing affordable homes for the low
income group (earning a monthly salary of less than Nu. 10,000) is being
questioned as the genuine low income residents start to see expensive cars and
other luxury dwellers living in the apartments. Although the recent
reallocation of the tenants has resulted in removing some of the higher income
dwellers, it is still not clear whether one could live in these homes under the
name of their spouses who’s income falls under the criteria. The government and
policy makers are yet to address this issue conclusively.
Perhaps, it is not so
surprising that the colony is rife with crime and violence. The community does
not foster interaction among residents and thus they lack a sense of
responsibility. On the contrary it seems to facilitate negative activities
especially with the number of youths who have dropped out from schools. There
seems to be a disconnect between the developer and people actually living
there, and also between the young and the old as a community. This story of
Changjiji is a sign of a larger picture of an urban Bhutanese society where equity
and justice may be put to test. Developers, architects, policy makers and all
stakeholders generally need to get over their lack of will act towards this
malaise.
