Jaipur’s Walled City is facing a form of urban change that is harder to regulate than a single unauthorised building: the gradual accumulation of tin roofs, exposed wires, signboards, grills, lighting and commercial extensions across historic facades. In Kishanpole Bazaar, Gangauri Bazaar and Ramganj Bazaar, temporary restaurants, tea stalls and seating areas have appeared on or above traditional verandahs, raising questions about permissions, monitoring and the meaning of conservation in a living heritage district.
The concern is not limited to whether a particular structure violates a byelaw. It is about how hundreds of small additions can collectively alter the visual identity of an urban area recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The changes described in the report are individually modest, but their combined effect is visible at the scale of the street: historic facades become obscured, traditional verandahs acquire new commercial functions and the relationship between markets, buildings and public space begins to shift.
This makes visual pollution a governance problem as much as an architectural one. The Walled City is not an isolated monument protected from everyday use. It contains streets, markets, chowkris, havelis, temples, shops and residences that continue to support economic and social activity. The challenge is therefore not to remove commerce from the historic city, but to control the physical forms through which commerce occupies and modifies heritage space.
The distinction matters because commercial activity is already embedded in Jaipur’s historic urban structure. Residents and traders use verandahs, shopfronts and upper portions of buildings as part of daily economic life. The reported concern is that temporary restaurants, tea stalls, tin sheds, lights and seating arrangements are being added without clear evidence of approval, while external air-conditioning ducts, electrical wires and balcony grills are changing the appearance of the facades.
According to the report, commercial activity on upper portions of verandahs in the affected areas is limited to around 20%, but the visual impact extends beyond those locations. A heritage streetscape is experienced as a continuous public environment. A façade does not lose its significance only when every property is modified. Repeated additions across a market can weaken the coherence that makes the area recognisable in the first place.
Former chief town planner H S Sancheti described the Walled City as a living heritage area rather than simply a collection of old buildings. His point places the issue within a broader planning framework. Heritage value is created not only by individual structures, but also by the arrangement of streets, markets, building fronts, public movement and traditional architectural details. When signboards, colours, grills, roofs or other additions are handled without a common standard, the historic character can change incrementally even if no single intervention appears decisive.
Sancheti said heritage byelaws should be strictly followed for external facades, signboards, colours and architectural additions. He also argued that renovation should mean conservation rather than transformation. That distinction is central to the Walled City’s future: maintenance and adaptation are necessary in an occupied urban district, but they need to preserve the elements that make the district historically legible.
The report also points to a basic weakness in the current monitoring system. Several establishments in Ramganj have installed temporary tin roofs, lighting and seating areas above verandahs, while iron railings and other additions have also been put up. The report raises questions about whether these changes received the necessary permissions and which authority is responsible for checking them. Those questions remain unresolved in the supplied material, but they reveal the administrative difficulty of managing a heritage area where municipal functions, commercial activity and conservation responsibilities overlap.
The institutional landscape is particularly important because the State Heritage Committee includes the MLAs from the Hawa Mahal and Kishanpole constituencies, both of which cover parts of the Walled City. Hawa Mahal MLA Balmukund Acharya said he had written several letters to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation regarding encroachments. He proposed a separate monitoring committee, cameras and Google mapping to track violations. Kishanpole MLA Amin Kagzi was unavailable for comment.
The presence of multiple actors does not automatically create effective protection. Heritage committees may be involved in conservation, the municipal corporation may address encroachments and property owners or traders may undertake physical changes. Without a clear process for inspection, approval, enforcement and restoration, responsibility can become distributed without becoming accountable. The question is not merely whether an authority exists, but whether residents and property owners know where to seek approval and whether violations are identified and acted upon consistently.
Historian Reema Hooja described exposed wires, unnecessary banners and advertising hoardings as part of the visual pollution affecting the city’s appearance. She also warned that temporary restaurants, tin sheds and tea stalls on verandahs could damage the original character of the heritage area and create risks for Jaipur’s UNESCO status. Her comments connect the physical appearance of the streets to the city’s tourism economy, while also raising concerns about unauthorised additional floors and modern structures.
The tourism question is not simply about keeping a historic city visually attractive for visitors. It concerns the economic value of retaining a distinctive urban environment while allowing the area to function for residents and businesses. Hooja asked what would remain of the heritage market and heritage area if modern structures filled the Walled City. That question captures the tension between short-term commercial adaptation and the longer-term value of preserving the environment that gives the market its identity.
The report does not establish the number of affected properties, the total area covered by unauthorised additions, the permissions issued for individual establishments or the number of enforcement actions taken. It also does not provide a documented assessment of the effect on Jaipur’s UNESCO status. Those gaps matter. Visual change is easy to observe, but a credible conservation response requires a property-level record showing what has changed, when it changed, whether approval was obtained and what corrective action is possible.
Sancheti’s suggestions address this information gap. He called for continuous monitoring of important facades, a digital photographic and GIS record of heritage properties and the use of AI-based software to identify unauthorised changes. A photographic and GIS archive would allow authorities to compare the condition of buildings over time rather than relying only on complaints or occasional inspections. AI-based identification, if adopted, could help flag changes, but the report does not establish whether such a system currently exists or how it would be governed.
Technology, however, cannot substitute for an administrative decision. A camera may identify a new roof or a changed façade, but an authority still has to determine whether the intervention is permitted, contact the owner or occupier, assess its impact and decide whether removal, modification or regularisation is appropriate. Monitoring tools become useful only when linked to clear heritage rules and a defined enforcement chain.
The proposal for greater involvement of residents, traders and property owners addresses another practical issue. People who occupy and use the Walled City are likely to see changes before a formal inspection does. Their participation could help identify unauthorised work and improve awareness of what modifications require approval. At the same time, participation cannot become a substitute for enforcement, particularly where commercial interests benefit from extending activities into shared or visually prominent spaces.
A dedicated Heritage Committee or Heritage Cell, as suggested by Hooja, would create a more focused institutional point for decisions on such structures. The report does not specify whether a new body will be created, what powers it would have or how it would coordinate with the Jaipur Municipal Corporation and the State Heritage Committee. Those are consequential details because a new committee without authority, staff or an enforcement mechanism would add another layer without resolving the existing ambiguity.
The larger urban question is how a historic city can remain economically active without allowing incremental commercial changes to erase its defining character. Jaipur’s Walled City cannot be treated as a frozen museum, but neither can the need for everyday business justify uncontrolled changes to facades, verandahs and streetscapes. Conservation in this setting requires a working balance between use and continuity.
The evidence currently confirms a visible pattern of physical additions and a concern among heritage and planning voices that these changes are altering the historic skyline and streetscape. It also exposes uncertainty over permissions, monitoring and institutional responsibility. The next meaningful steps are therefore likely to involve establishing a reliable record of affected properties, clarifying the authority responsible for approvals and enforcement, and determining whether the proposed monitoring mechanisms will be adopted. Until those questions are answered, Jaipur’s heritage protection system remains focused on individual changes while the cumulative transformation continues to shape the city.