culture in the plan
Housing/ Transportation/ Health/ Education/ Livelihoods/ Environment/ Water/ Energy/ Governance/ Urban Form _ UDRI Stakeholders Principles
Housing/ Education/ Health/ Transport/ Waste Management/ Environment and Open Spaces _ Proposals for, in the People’s Vision Document YUVA Urban
Residential/ Urban Villages/ Educational Amenities/ Medical Amenities/ Commercial Activities/ Social Amenities/ Natural Areas and Open Spaces/ Offices/ Transport and Communication/ Industrial Use/ Vacant Lands/ Primary Activity/ Public Utility and Facility/ Unclassified _ Consolidated Land Use Categories from the Preparatory Studies
Transportation/ Development Control Regulation (DCR) Simplification/ Education/ Environment and Sustainable City/ Slum Housing/ Urban Form/ Water/ Gaothan, Koliwada, Adivasi/ Gender/ SWM and Sanitation/ Informal sector/ Formal Housing and Physical infrastructure/ Health/ Digital Inclusion _ Discussion heads for the consultation workshops by the MCGM with the Citizen’s groups
_ Layers of engagement [concerns or issues and land allocations] by various agencies participating in the planning process
26th of March 2014 at closing of the two day national symposium on inclusionary urbanism organised by YUVA Urban in Mahim Nature Park, marked a significant moment in participatory planning process currently being conducted in Mumbai. Sitaram Shelar concluding his review of the event proceedings acknowledged the overlook of aspects on culture in their respective citizen’s vision plan. UDRI during the course of the day in its official launch [via email dispatch] of the International Design Competition on Dharavi updated a revised set of heads under their stakeholder principles adding culture and social activities to the list.
This act is momentous as it took both of them 3 [YUVA Urban] and 5 [UDRI] years to even consider the need of a citizens’ perspective for discussion in the planning exercise. The concern isn’t about whether or not culture is significant but of the processes followed by the citizen groups in staking their claim in what is important for consideration in the planning exercises. Culture could be argued as the lifeblood of civilisations and societies, here in the case instead of the government it’s the people who seem oblivious towards its significance. The question then arises are the methods employed in by the people groups presenting their claims in the design of the city’s plan.
Mumbai Development Plan is in its third iteration. Known as Mumbai DP’14 in the Preparatory Studies it has being revised after a period of almost 30 years and will be enforced for a timeframe of 20 till 2034. The city is considered to be in a deplorable state with almost 70% of its population being housed in slums where conditions could hardly be deemed liveable. These standards are further compounded with inadequate medical and education facilities in various parts of the city. An epitome of inequality is the introduction to the city as positioned in the People’s Vision Document by YUVA Urban. In the context to this is introduced the planning process.
The first plan started work in ’67 and implemented around ’71. The second was undertaken in the late ‘80’s by the time it reached implementation stage it was the ‘90’s and therefore the extension. It is claimed that if even 40% of the plan is efficiently realised instead of the existing 7% - 9% the city would be in a better state. The revision, for that matter the third is therefore an attempt to do away the errors from the previous two plans according to the people groups. Song rightly sung is of the exercise being an event of a lifetime. Understandably the more pressing issues and layers have been given to be discussed in great detail. The question at this juncture is that can the fallout of culture as a head be looked as an opportunity to exert a method for citizen participation?
To state as an observation to the participatory processes UDRI could be credited to have begun the task of citizen’s engagement in this process. Therefore all outfalls is could be assumed to have built on what the institution laid out as its understanding of engaging with the planning authorities. The format for a citizen’s plan has been drawn from the case study of NYC2030 plan, with some of its salient features of those which could be adapted, be iterated for Mumbai. YUVA Urban’s plan used the UDRI methods as references to frame its People’s Vision Document. The iteration gets a bit convoluted in its format. Instead of a linear narrative as presented by UDRI it stages mandates as Proposals for, Towards a, Inclusion of and Participation. To elaborate a bit on each of them – Proposals for positions a set of ideas for select layers, Towards a proposes people types, Inclusion of tags people groups and Participation suggests ideas in people’s participation in the planning processes.
Owing to the efforts of these agencies MCGM complies to conduct, as per their understanding of the citizen’s demands for the plan 14 heads towards discussion. As workshops involving coordinating citizen groups with their stakeholders against the municipality accompanied by their consultants [Group SCE] these deliberated the varying concerns that the plan could address. Of note is that instead maintaining discussions under their working heads published in the Preparatory Studies it had been modified to accommodate the various citizen groups. To get “culture” now into this conversation requires to identify which out of the four layer groups is the most favourable position to receive and sustain ideas on the subject.
UDRI for the moment at least seems to have moved on from its stated citizen’s principles and concentrating energies onto organising the international competition. Culture is but an icon on the advertising website and it’s still not very clear if the task fits into the institution’s DP24x7 Project or to be seen as an independent exercise. YUVA Urban’s document even as framework seems too tight to fit another postulate. If it does accommodate, revisions would be required in most of the sections. The consultation meetings are complete and in its present format very unlikely to be repeated. The only option that remains is a negotiation as dictated and constrained by land use categories from the preparatory studies published.
To set out limits for culture as a layer for engagement would be to identify its possible variants within the urban geography. Four broader views towards discussing its case will encompass a) local language/ its education/ awards, b) indigenous communities/ food/ festivals/ entertainment, c) architecture and d) cultural industries. Associated land requirements for these programs necessitates designation in the plan as per standards being considered. After the citizen’s consultation workshops the next stage for participation is the proposed land use plan or PLU to be published for review. Intervention at this stage would require a consolidated view on what is expected in relation to goals/ visions projected and how it’s being translated.
Consultation unlike earlier versions would be at the ward/ planning sector levels. Taking the anticipated method and the required detail to factor in two possibilities are available a) the simpler limit culture under selected subject categories of social amenities or b) the expansive consideration injecting cultural attributes for favourable layers in the proposal. For the first state under social amenities subject categories of welfare activities, entertainment centres, recreational activities, religious spaces and other social amenities order the cultural plan. In essence what is proposed that culture as understood for the city is limited to possibilities earmarked under the designated land uses.
In the second state the primary layers on the basis of the four conditions for culture starts with urban villages, educational amenities, commercial activities, social amenities, natural areas and open spaces and industrial use. Subject Categories then will be detailed on the basis of an extended cultural plan for the city. Implementing this firstly needs a collaborative vision for culture in the city. Either a draft drawn out and circulated for inputs or invited gathering of a group of stakeholders to list out the issues to then be taken forward in slotting it layer and wardwise for discussion for the upcoming consultation stage. Advantage of this conversation on culture is that there is a bridge in discussing both formal and informal versions of an idea on the same plane. How then cultural plan relates with already existing ideas say that of urban villages and public open spaces is thus of note.
Culture in the plan is a build off from the existing foundational work done in the associated plan layers. Ideally it shouldn’t try to be new but play along what has been executed and meander its way through avenues available. Where things have been left out those be brought in place. Stakes overlooked should then find a mention. As a head there isn’t any credible cultural theme in the consolidated planning layers of the DP14. To institute a newer attribute should be contributory in presence and adding to the framework.
The Maharashtra State Cultural Policy of 2010 is the most recent formal conversation to have brought about the State’s view on Culture. It’s to be revised every 5 years and this year holds the prescribed period of its revision. Shouldn’t therefore the juncture be applied to re-examine the policy postulates and possibly detail the same in various parts of the region and state? An elaboration for the state policy is its urban version focusing on contextual idiosyncrasies. Its form thus is aptly structured on the forces in motion and facilities to morph over time. Methods therefore to bring “culture” into the plan is a coordinated effort between the people, city and the state. All three need to have their respective viewpoints aligned to have a development strategy that is beneficial to all.