Bengaluru’s Johnson market: Years of planning, no blueprint yet

Published - August 19, 2026 09:09 pm IST - Bengaluru

A view of Johnson Market in Bengaluru. | Photo Credit: ALLEN EGENUSE J.

Much like its century-old existence, the long-pending redevelopment of Johnson Market has remained stuck. A redevelopment plan has been proposed again this year, but it has not yet progressed to the detailed project report (DPR) stage, leaving little clarity on what the proposed market will look like or how its existing traders will be accommodated.

In its maiden budget this year, the Central Corporation said it would take up the redevelopment of markets that had fallen into disrepair while preserving their local character. It allocated ₹90 crore for market development, including ₹20 crore for three markets — Johnson market, K.R. Market and Kalasipalya Market.

Traders divided over demolition

With the redevelopment proposal, uncertainty has once again divided traders. While a section wants the market to be redeveloped, they want the exercise to be centred on the shops that are currently licenced and operating. Another group, however, is opposed to demolition altogether, arguing that the historic structure can be retained and its infrastructure and open spaces improved instead.

For traders who have seen redevelopment proposals come and go, the issue is less about resisting change and more about what they believe needs to be changed. Mehmood of Madeena Stores said the market had lost much of its prominence over the years, but continued to be the source of livelihood for several traders. Governments had repeatedly proposed redevelopment, he said, but had given little clarity beyond plans to demolish the existing structure and build a new one.

He said the building itself did not warrant demolition. Instead, its existing structure could be retained and upgraded, allowing traders to continue operating without the disruption that a complete reconstruction would entail.

Mohammed Ismail, another trader, made a similar argument, saying there was no structural threat to the building. The more pressing need, he said, was to improve the open spaces, drainage and other basic infrastructure within the market. He opined that renovation could address these shortcomings without the need to displace traders and demolish a building with historical significance.

The market does have its share of problems. It is hemmed in by heavy traffic, while piles of meat and vegetable waste are a recurring issue around the premises. Traders, however, maintain that these are problems of infrastructure, waste management and traffic regulation that can be addressed without bringing down the entire market.

What concerns them more, they argue, is what demolition would mean for their businesses. If the market is rebuilt, traders fear that relocation during construction could leave some businesses at a disadvantage, particularly if there is no transparent system for deciding who gets space and where. With the project yet to reach the DPR stage, there is no clarity on these arrangements either.

The government, however, sees the need for a more fundamental intervention.

N.A. Haris, Shantinagar MLA, said the market structure had deteriorated over the years and that increasing population and traffic had put additional pressure on the area. With the Pink Line of the Metro also expected to come up nearby, he said redevelopment would be taken up under a public-private partnership (PPP) model, involving demolition of the existing structure.

At the same time, there is little detail yet on what would come up in its place. Mr. Haris said the proposal was still at a preliminary stage and that it was too early to specify the facilities or layout of the redeveloped market. Parking, he said, would be one of the priorities, given the growing traffic and population.

The lack of clarity or the resistance is not new. A similar PPP-based redevelopment plan was proposed in 2015 during the Siddaramaiah government. It envisaged demolishing the existing market and relocating traders, but faced opposition from the market association, which approached the High Court. The proposal did not progress thereafter.

Published - August 19, 2026 09:09 pm IST

Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.