[draft 02] dp douments archive
Mumbai development planning process is one of the largest citizens planning initiative to span over a period of almost 10 years starting from 2007. Began at UDRI as a house project, the exercise has evolved into a pan-city exercise to have encouraged multitudinous agendas to spawn all in the mandate of locating a stake in the future of city development. The development plan archive is a pursuit to capture this movement in time and city planning to present a landscape of aspirations promoted by the various participating people groups. Even though UDRI is credited to have started the proceedings, three other agencies in YUVA URBAN, TISS and KRVIA have, to an extent risen as prominent platforms of discussions on the third edition of the Mumbai Development plan. Archive as objective, is a pursuit to gather as documents/ content generated from various sources along with those from the MCGM, to record the planning event. This it tries to do with the objective of locating material generated by identified stakeholders and publically disseminated as its version of the DP Project.
The agenda for this archive is through these gathered documents record the event as a collective exercise and not that of a singular institution. Variations of material which the event has produced should inform the actual form of proceedings, which in a course of time is subject to dilution and therefore, misinterpretation. Most of what’s conducted until now is systematic gathering and writing sketches about the material and its subsequent generation systems. Process documentation as a project was initiated around December of 2011 just about when about YUVA was reconfiguring its engagements and role in the planning process (around the time Aravind Unni joins YUVA). For the period before that from January 2008 to September 2011, I was working at the UDRI on its version of the DP project. In essence, the task is a trace of sorts of an evolution of a project and its subsequent impact informed by the content produced during a period. As per knowledge constrains the archive should make available only material in English. This is decision is mostly staged as the lack of resources the project has been able to garner as of this instance of writing.
Language as a mandate was to an extent the hallmark of the exercise and could be stated as one of the key criteria under which there was an overwhelming response though this needs adequate proof. A broad assumption for extended interests could be drawing out of principles at the early stages of the project. Principles over plans simplify the imagination of this planning pursuit hence logging aspirations towards formulating a plan makes participation easier and probably transcends the language barrier. Even after this extended period of time the DP project (for all its stakeholders) could be still located as early stages since the actual development plan is still very much under production. How the second draft will unfold and its subsequent reception all leaves the imminent form of the archive in a flux. Following text rewrites archive frameworks with the mandate of clarifying some found observations during the process. As method, it draws from two instances of a conversation and a lecture to elaborate on some working ideas for work done against the project.
Urban Planning and the Heterogenous City: A study of the technical, social and political controversies around the 2014-2034 Mumbai Development Plan by Tobias Baitsch _ It is aimed at understanding planning processes in Mumbai through a mapping exercise of the multiple involved actors which align around controversial topics, such as FSI, heritage and others. Thus, we understand the controversies that revolves around the making of the DP as an event in planning, which brings to light the contested nature of city-making. Thus we try to understand the diverse and changing standpoints of the different stakeholders.
mapping exercise of the multiple involved actors _ six larger specific instances when community groups have assembled towards voicing concerns for a plan are - a) udri letter writing phase, b) yuva people’s plan document, c) first version of the draft development plan, d) ELU corrections, e) designation survey + road survey corrections and finally f) the next draft scheduled by May this year. Both UDRI and YUVA has associative lists of project stakeholders which can assemble a geography if mapped. Participation of these can be compared with subsequent suggestion and objections phase of the plans, again producing an alternate map. Who has corrected what as per the surveys can also produce another map, though difficult to undertake than the other two.
controversial topics _ open space, city heritage/ fsi/ built form, position on non-development zones, environment and housing - are seemingly subjects of engagements to have emerged at the instance for the first development plan draft. Mostly a derivative of the eminent citizen’s letter published in Hindustan times and en masse submission of suggestions, objections letters by YUVA Urban a space of controversy is staged. How and what is a controversial topic for a development planning exercise need location in order to prove it being controversial. As per what data is available via the second development plan and time of planning exercises some realistic (substantiated) aspirations is required towards what can and is Mumbai Development Plan 2014 - ‘34.
events in planning _ there are two trajectories to plot events transpired in this period of approximately ten to twelve years (at this junction, its anticipated that the plan will take another two years from its publishing to audit states from stakeholders) of engagement with the plan. Primary thread is a timeline of the formal planning process as mandated by BMC Act and subsequently followed by MCGM. Overlaid is private stakeholder DP project initiatives and their subsequent components to align with the larger processes. Duality of this nature, when plotted should present ideally which documents were published by whom and its documented outcomes. For purposes of archival, top five of the most vocal among the stakeholders i.e UDRI, YUVA Urban, TISS, KRVIA and PEATA initiatives require recording.
contested nature of city making _ a key aspect which got drawn in at the publishing of the first development draft was planning limits, in essence what area is demarcated as under preview of the city development plan and its linkages with other islands of special planning zones in the city. With slum land occupying a significant area in city limits, what are the kind of planning policies which are going to get accepted. Those contesting are spearheaded by agencies with no direct land stake. Elaborating, previously activism from the people submitted a plan to the government for consideration. At this instance, there is no complete city plan but a series of principles which someone needs to prove as being possible. Even with available area plans, there aren’t no prescriptions for plans to be part of the process other than correction of errors. How a city which can measure up to a staged set of ideal principles can be stated as being anyone’s guess.
different stakeholder _ to identify stakeholders need to adequately define the role of NGO’s and their stake in the city, who is running their plot and based on what mandates. Is the city NGO or educational institute or consultant a valid stakeholder when say other landowners are relatively absent? A case study or example is the Chembur Heritage Precinct proposal wherein it was a proposed study which was commissioned, even though at the time of citizen’s meeting it was all accepted and well received. When the actual implementation of regulation was laid out the residents brought in all their fervour revoked the precinct delineation. Also the case for M-Ward where TISS is a direct stakeholder. All up till the history of the institute they have had access to the neighbourhood and are unable to find any discrepancies in the region. It was only when the human development report of 2009 came out that they were forced (inadvertently) to recognize and develop the M-Ward project. On the other hand taking the case of say UDRI and KRVIA both of them are extremely successful in the work they have proposed and progressed in making sufficient headway in projects in their neighbourhood. Thus the state where who is actually responsible for identifying problems in a neighbourhood the residents or a local NGO to bring it to notice to the planning agency. What happens in a neighbourhood which doesn’t have adequate participation? Who takes charge in bringing its problems for redressal?
SEA Emerging Practices | Transformative Urban Praxis: From Projects to Processes with Hussain Indorewala & Shweta Wagh _ Socio-economic organization of urban research and urban practice most often dis-empower and alienate communities in whose name these are undertaken. This presentation will seek to explore the credibility of the various 'fields’ that constitute urban practice and their various ‘publics’. What is architecture’s public? What is research’s public? What is education’s public? What is activism’s public? Is their public these practitioners themselves? Their clients and patrons? Or the people who they purportedly serve? Is there a possibility of becoming part of an urban praxis, that combines reflection and action directed at structures to be transformed? Is there a possibility of moving beyond engagement through ‘projects’ and ‘case-studies’, to collaborating in an urban process where learning is dialogical, engagement self-critical, and transformation mutual?
emerging practices _ due to the span of operation and possible opportunities city development planning exercise has presented, an occurrence of the design practice of Shweta and Hussain is one such example. From early instances of finding acceptances of ideas as blog posts and popular participants in citizens meetings, they have created a space of significance by critical analysis of several state planning policies. Instead of identifying projects they built a design practice out of processes they’ve identified with. For the presentation, they describe three of projects found from these process based interventions. As a tactic in locating the practice their route is definitely one to emulate though it would be interesting to uncover relevance of such work when there are several similar practices operating in this space which they have located themselves in.
Discussions on engagements seem to emerge from process experiences instead of building on the questions posed in their talk poster. Mostly “public” as the directive which found itself distributed in the event abstract is absent or if deliberated it seemed muffed among experiences reviewed. It’s too new a practice proposition who has used ideas as material for work to argue for or against in the as being viable in context of the city. All their work also to an extent comes off as a side business as their primary source of income is from academics and projects they discuss are understood to be pro bono work, though recognition too is a remuneration type.
Getting to the questions, I am of the opinion, from the lot listed are misinformed provocations. Examining public as a concept need a bit more elaboration [case in point - the production of public by Prasad Shetty & Rupali Gupte, April 2011], therefore to casually distribute it against, knowledge systems may lead to misinterpretation. As an extension to the larger theme of the archive, zoning in on its objectives, as project repository its intended audience is academic design/ research projects and where viable encouraged for use in urban activism. It should be noted the answers to these questions are purely personal notes accommodated as part of the draft, to build on some aspects in the future. Shweta/ Hussain will definitely have alternate ways of redressing these issues and be considered as such.
what is architecture’s public? _ architecture needs patrons to appreciate it and therefore, encourage a certain type of production in buildings. For the profession to evolve, its core principles need encouragement. Architecture for most instances becomes on collaboration between a client, the architect and its builder/ contractor. Its users are varied based on its program. How their reception to the building is accepted mostly rests on owners.
what is research’s public? _ research when placed in an academic stage is contributory to a knowledge system whichever the academic syllabus might be. Transferring it between domains could risk the losing of rigors that requires the production of a certain quality and formatted outcome. This outcome too needs a schema of appreciation for it to be applied, meaning various types of research need consideration when aspiring to cater to a certain kind of public.
what is education’s public? _ education shouldn’t be forced upon. Its participants should adhere willingly to calls of tutelage. It should also not be assumed that finding faults within systems is a way of education. Sometimes faults are by design or a result of unseen inadequacies and not particularly out of seeming ignorance.
what is activism’s public? is their public these practitioners themselves? their clients and patrons? or the people who they purportedly serve? _ as an enterprise, activism is tricky enough. When a designer is invited into a space engaging in activism, s/he & they are being patronised. The designer gets a client who entrusts a project to the individual/s. There is also an understanding to reach at this instance is that getting design jobs from those involved in activism may not always qualify the designer regarded as an activist, where s/he is simply doing a job appointed for.
is there a possibility of becoming part of an urban praxis, that combines reflection and action directed at structures to be transformed? _ to facilitate urban systems transformation, aspirations of working at it from outside or as concerned citizens is not very sustainable and may not yield results at all instances of engagement. Structural changes to be done could be performed from within the system, which too aren’t deemed successful. Error finding to stake qualifications within structures is common across fields and recommended mechanism on locating consultancy opportunities.
is there a possibility of moving beyond engagement through ‘projects’ and ‘case-studies’, to collaborating in an urban process where learning is dialogical, engagement self-critical, and transformation mutual? _ to distinguish between a project and process is a bit tricky as both are interchangeable especially in urban environments. Based on which side you or what time you have been drawn into a process things will seem different and could be interrupted as such. If a project has been ongoing for a long period of time it could be argued as a process, though a project could ideally be envisioned as a series of processes. Especially for a design practice when a product is attained after a given time period it should be attributed to being a project, even if processes where tapped to reach it.
To summarise, owing to the shifting tendencies of the planning exercise, distinct lenses of content gathering, structuring and anticipated recommended interpretation is required. These drafts are tests to localise, with the obligation to discuss pursuits in archiving a public event. Under a future amalgamated methodology the archive should be in a position to make available all benchmarked documents to any bona fide engagement with the city. On the basis of this case i.e. a conversation and discussion or the previous a book making exercise, several instances will be tried. Up until now it’s largely been unsuccessful in locating a pattern of content production therefore the partial failure of controlling a project outcome.