Morphology of Indian Cities

Now, let’s try to understand a very important theme in Settlement Geography: the morphology of Indian cities—that is, the form, structure, and spatial layout of our cities.

To begin with, we must remember one foundational truth:

No city—Indian or global—follows the textbook model perfectly

In urban geography, we study various models to understand how cities grow:

• The Concentric Zone Model (by Burgess),
• The Sector Model (by Hoyt), and
• The Multiple Nuclei Model (by Harris and Ullman).

But real cities are rarely carbon copies of these models.

👉 What actually happens is this: most cities show a mixture of all these models.
You might find concentric zonation near the core, sectoral growth along major transport routes, and multiple nuclei in large metropolitan regions. So, these models act as tools to interpret urban growth—not as strict blueprints.

Now, when we apply this understanding to Indian cities, things get more interesting.

Indian cities are not ‘typical’ modern urban centres

Unlike the well-planned, industrial-age cities of the developed world—think Chicago, Tokyo, or Berlin—most Indian cities have evolved in a very different way.

Here’s the key idea:

Many Indian cities are essentially “overgrown villages.”

Let’s understand this:

Historically, many of our cities did not begin as planned urban spaces. They started off as rural settlements that kept expanding over time due to population pressure, migration, or administrative importance. As a result, these cities often retained rural traits, such as:

• Poorly developed or unpaved roads,
• Agricultural or park-agri functions (where land still has a partly agricultural use),
• Scattered, inadequate housing,
• Lack of proper sewerage or drainage systems,
• Poor access to civic amenities like schools, hospitals, and parks.

This is why we often say Indian cities are quasi-urban in nature—part urban, part rural.

Urban congestion and lack of planning: A common issue

Another critical aspect of Indian urban morphology is overcrowding and poor infrastructure planning.

Let’s imagine a typical Indian city—maybe Old Delhi, Varanasi, or Patna.

You’ll see:

• Narrow roads with heavy traffic,
• No distinction between commercial and residential zones,
• Hardly any open public spaces, and
• Chaotic layouts that grew organically without planning.

This condition is described in geography as the absence of civic infrastructure planning. What we mean is that:

• There was no proper zoning,
• Road networks were not designed in anticipation of modern traffic,
• Open spaces were either never planned or encroached over time.

To Summarise

1. Indian cities do not follow any one urban morphology model perfectly—but show elements of all.
2. Unlike cities in developed countries, most Indian cities evolved from villages, and still carry rural features.
3. They are typically congested, with poor infrastructure and lack of planned land-use zoning.

This makes the morphology of Indian cities a hybrid—a mix of rural past and urban present, with planning often lagging behind growth.