Chandigarh - Why make Sector 17, Chandigarh boring?

A few days ago, I had seen several reports in the Tribune regarding Sector 17. A couple of extracts:

1. Now as malls and hotels had come up in the Industrial area, city’s Sector 17 plaza had lost its sheen. People are now not coming to Sector 17, he said.
2. shopkeepers in Sector 17 have started restoring the facade of their properties by way of silicon treatment or by other means. Keeping in view the heritage status of Sector 17, the estate office has been issuing notices to the traders.

But I wonder:

• What would Times Square or Ginza be without the glitter? 
• Why not move away from the drab grey? 
• Why not let the area or each block be redeveloped like a mall - with escalators so not just the ground floor is easily accessible?

Why do we need to stick to the original plan of Le Corbusier  without question, e.g. http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/le-corbusier-modernist-visiona-97845

Le Corbusier’s ideas weren’t all so great. Critics (like Jane Jacobs) argue that his vision for urban life was destructive to the city, alienating people from one another, and elevating the car over the human. He was on the fascist end of the political spectrum for a while, at one point working for Mussolini. And for decades, he tried (and thankfully failed) to get Paris to raze the Marais neighborhood and build one of his city plans (like image 3). Contemporary designers seem less driven by Le Corbusier's modernist idea that “all men have the same needs,” and more into the postmodern concept that everyone has different wants.

A very nice talk on how New York City is re-imagining the streets - Janette_sadik_khan_new_york_s_streets_not_so_mean_any_more.