How 2 Bengaluru Designers Are Reimagining Empty Flyover Space With Swings, Seats & Greenery

The designers aimed to make difficult urban spaces work better for people walking. At Racecourse Junction, they focused on reducing the distance and time pedestrians spent crossing moving traffic. Beneath Shivananda Flyover, they examined a large unused area beside a very narrow footpath.

At Racecourse, the proposal included a more compact left turn, changes to traffic movement and a pedestrian refuge island. The island would let people pause during the crossing. The article also says the Shivananda team found pedestrians already using the space, but the provided text ends before describing its proposed or completed design.

The Racecourse intervention was documented as completed by February 2025, with benches installed. BBMP redevelopment plans also included crossings, seating and waiting areas. No final Shivananda design details are available in the supplied text, so its outcome cannot be stated without speculation.

A pedestrian refuge island is a protected waiting area within or beside a road crossing. It gives people somewhere to stop before continuing across the remaining traffic lanes. This matters when a road is wide, busy or difficult to cross in one movement.

At Racecourse Junction, designers proposed an island because pedestrians were crossing a wider stretch of moving traffic than necessary. Instead of making the entire crossing in one step, a person could reach the island, pause, and then cross the next section. The proposal was paired with a more compact turn and changes to traffic movement.

The article documents the physical intervention, including redevelopment work, crossings, seating and waiting areas. It does not provide published before-and-after figures for crossing times or traffic conflicts. Even so, the island’s intended mechanism is clear: break up the crossing and reduce continuous exposure to vehicles.

The route beneath Shivananda Flyover gave pedestrians barely 1.5 feet of footpath. That figure describes the usable walking space available along the route mentioned in the article. It shows how little room people had to pass through the area.

The narrow footpath existed below a flyover where a large area was otherwise unused. The team studied the space as part of its search for locations where a demonstration project could address several urban problems at once. These included awkward road edges and spaces left beneath flyovers.

The provided text does not continue far enough to state the final Shivananda design or whether the walking width later changed. It does establish the starting condition: pedestrians had barely 1.5 feet to walk on, while substantial space beneath the flyover was not being used.

Pedestrian exposure time is the time someone spends crossing among moving vehicles. The designers used this idea to explain why a wide, vehicle-oriented turn created a problem. A longer crossing keeps a person near traffic for longer and increases the difficulty of the journey.

At Racecourse Junction, the team proposed a more compact turn and a refuge island. The compact turn would reduce the width of the area pedestrians needed to cross. The island would divide the remaining crossing into stages, giving people a place to pause instead of requiring one continuous movement through traffic.

The article presents these changes as a way to make daily journeys easier for students, officegoers and other pedestrians. However, published before-and-after measurements were not available for the story. Therefore, the intended reduction in exposure is documented, but its measured size is not.

The team began by observing movement instead of assuming how the junction worked. It counted vehicles, followed pedestrian routes and recorded places where people and traffic conflicted. This revealed that the left-turn traffic volume was much lower than the pedestrian volume.

Those findings shaped the Racecourse proposal. The designers saw that pedestrians were crossing a wider stretch of moving traffic than necessary, so they proposed a more compact turn, altered traffic movement and added a refuge island. They also tested designs on the street before permanent construction, because real people and drivers may move differently from drawings.

On-street testing could reveal shortcuts, unexpected turns or problems when traffic built up. The approach allowed designers to adjust plans before construction became permanent. The article documents the completed Racecourse intervention, but it does not provide before-and-after measurements of crossing times or conflicts.

The project involved several roles. Nishita Parmar and Vedanti Agarwal studied movement and developed the urban-design response, working with principal designer Monik Shah and the team at Compartment S4. Their work covered observation, mapping, testing and proposals for public-space changes.

The Orbital project was commissioned by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, or BBMP, and supported by the Sustainable Mobility Network. At Racecourse, BBMP had begun redevelopment work by December 2023. Plans included pedestrian crossings, seating and waiting areas. The article does not identify a separate private funder.

By February 2025, local reporting described the Racecourse redevelopment as completed, with benches installed for pedestrians and officegoers. Compartment S4 also listed the project as completed. The article describes BBMP’s commissioning and redevelopment role, but does not separately detail every approval decision or funding amount.

Cities can begin by studying how streets actually function rather than assuming vehicles should receive most of the space. The article describes counting traffic, mapping pedestrian routes and locating conflicts. This evidence helps show whether road space is serving the people who use it most.

At Racecourse, relatively few vehicles used one left turn, while many pedestrians crossed that stretch. The designers therefore proposed a smaller turn and a refuge island. Their wider approach also considered greenery, public space, road edges and areas beneath flyovers, while recognising transport, utility and space constraints.

The final choice must also fit government approvals, available budgets and construction realities. Parmar says an intervention must address several urban issues together and be realistic enough to pass and get built. The article does not give a fixed formula for dividing every street among vehicles, walking, greenery or gathering; it shows an evidence-led, context-specific process.