Invoking City Improvement Trust’s legacy to oppose renaming of street in Chennai

It was with mixed feelings that I read about the protest of a set of residents against the renaming of 5^th Trust Cross Street, Mandaivelipakkam. On the one hand, I remain distressed by the Greater Chennai Corporation bending over backwards to accommodate any request connected with cinema. On the other, I was delighted by the manner in which the residents used history to support their appeal to retain the old name.

Around 50 residents got together and said that the decision to rename 5^th Trust Cross Street goes against the naming convention followed in their area, where Trust Cross Streets numbering 1 to 14 exist. Moreover, they said, the existing name is a silent tribute to the City Improvement Trust (CIT) that developed the entire locality. More power to whoever thought of this reasoning.

In a city where unplanned development is the norm, certain localities stand out for the foresight of the visionaries who designed them. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Corporation itself did some very good work, especially in the development of Shenoy Nagar and Anna Nagar. Later, in the 1970s, K.K. Nagar too was an exemplar on how to plan a new colony. After that, there is very little to show. But before all of these was the City Improvement Trust. There is a CIT Colony in Mylapore, a CIT Nagar in Saidapet, and then there are the Trust Cross Streets of Mandavelipakkam and Trustpuram in Kodambakkam. All of them are connected to the great and good work done in the 1940s and 1950s.

Formation of CIT

J.P.L. Shenoy, ICS, was a true visionary when it came to planning, and his tenure as Corporation Commissioner in the 1940s saw a lot of work being done. One among these was the formation of a City Improvement Trust, set up in 1945 with M.B. Chablani, a noted town planner, as its Chairman. The CIT’s mandate was to decongest old areas, lay out new localities, provide open spaces for recreation, acquire land for these purposes and also rehabilitate those affected by such development. The Trust comprised the Chairman, the Corporation Commissioner, the Director of Town Planning and the Director of Public Health, apart from representatives of various chambers of commerce, and an appointee of the provincial (later State) government. The Corporation contributed ₹2.5 lakh annually to the Trust. While that was for administrative purposes, loans were also given by the government to enable the Trust to go ahead with its activities.

Apart from the localities listed earlier, the Trust opened up Cox Cheri in Chintadripet, developed the Sylvan Lodge Colony, and executed what were called Mansion Improvement Schemes, of which no further details are available. The Trustpuram development was made necessary when the hut dwellers along Mount Road had to be relocated following the filling up of the Long Tank and the development of T. Nagar. The good work was continued through the 1950s with further development in Otteri and the Aspiran Garden Colony, Kilpauk. Individuals such as Capt. D. Gnanaolivu IAS, and Raghava Reddy, Contractor, headed the CIT.

But by the early 1960s, there was a change of thought. In 1961/1962, it was felt that the CIT was not progressing fast enough, and it was dissolved. A State Housing Board was formed, with Raghava Reddy becoming its Chairman. This was in my view a pity, for the quasi-independent nature of the CIT meant it could execute plans keeping long-term benefits and not short-term political exigencies in mind. Certainly, despite much mindless redevelopment, the CIT’s colonies and localities remain examples of good design even now.