Srinagar’s Smart City journey has reached a point where numbers alone no longer tell the story. Projects worth thousands of crores have been completed, plazas and pedestrian zones have been built, and public spaces have been reshaped. Yet the question that dominates the ground is whether this transformation is working for the people who live and trade in the city. Now the question is not about how much has been constructed, but whether the infrastructure functions, is maintained and supports daily life and business activity.
The experience of Lal Chowk and Polo View Market shows how quickly the promise of new assets can fade when upkeep and access are overlooked. Fountains that once drew crowds now stand broken, pedestrianisation that was meant to improve the environment has reduced customer access, and traders argue that consultation was minimal. These are not isolated complaints but reflections of a larger reality: a smart city cannot be defined by its completion rate, but by its ability to sustain value over time.
The programme was designed to improve mobility, sanitation, governance, and connectivity. Yet water transport on the Jhelum remains unrealised, and integration of projects into a wider mobility plan is incomplete. Traders and residents insist that the absence of maintenance and stakeholder involvement has weakened the impact of the investment. Infrastructure is not a static achievement; it requires stewardship, repairs, and cooperation to remain relevant.
Srinagar has reached an advanced stage in its Smart City mission, but the next phase is more demanding than the first. Construction is visible, but sustainability is invisible until tested daily. A city becomes smart not when projects are inaugurated, but when they continue to serve effectively years later. The measure of success lies not in the crores spent or the projects counted, but in whether residents and businesses experience real improvements in access, mobility, and quality of life.
The figures show that nearly all projects have been completed, but completion is not the same as functionality. Roads, drainage systems, and pedestrian infrastructure require constant upkeep to remain effective. Without regular maintenance, even the most modern facilities lose their utility, leaving citizens to question whether the investment has truly changed their lives. The challenge is not about building more, but about ensuring what has been built continues to work.
The commercial dimension of the Smart City effort is equally important. Traders argue that pedestrianisation and removal of parking facilities have reduced customer access, directly affecting business activity. Urban renewal cannot succeed if it undermines commerce, and the balance between public spaces and economic access must be carefully managed. A smart city must serve both its residents and its businesses, integrating mobility and accessibility into every intervention.
The wider vision of smart mobility remains incomplete. Water transport on the Jhelum, cycling tracks, and seamless connectivity were part of the plan but have yet to materialise. These gaps raise a deeper concern: whether projects are being pursued as isolated interventions or integrated into a coherent urban strategy. The next step is not about adding more projects to the tally but about ensuring that the existing ones connect into a system that genuinely improves daily life.
A city that has invested thousands of crores in new infrastructure must now direct equal attention to its upkeep, integration, and accessibility. Construction alone does not define progress; sustained functionality does. Without this shift in focus, Srinagar risks becoming a city of incomplete promises, where visible transformation conceals gaps in usability and public value.
