[draft 03] dp documents archive

Following text tries to answer and react on statements and questions by Kshitij Shah (student - Rachna Sansad/ CEPT pursuing a MArch majoring in Urban Design) for a thesis on Mumbai’s Development Planning process. The project aims to establish a link between the civil society, politics, and media as emerging actors and their impact on the process, and a possible recommendation for the re-articulation of the planning process. Via this reaction the text tries to locate work done on building a city information repository titled mumbaiopendata.org which is developed in this context of the plan mostly as documentation of urban academic research projects.

In this paper, I argue that conventional planning methods are becoming irrelevant in the contemporary city because; the city and the civil society have changed! _ The city doesn’t have a history of (integrated) planning. Most parts of Mumbai has organically grown till it was limited by its geography. In the city are relatively two patches of conventional planning - the first - town planning schemes, other pre-development planning era urban restructuring exercises and second - modern area management proposals by NGO’s, private practices, design schools with their ideas on how specific areas in the city should operate. Only at the first draft of the 2014-‘34 Mumbai DP has the city got its opportunity to see in its fullest extent what a city plan and its components look like. It’s quite early in Mumbai’s planning processes to reject a/ any version of planning methods. The city has taken its course in time. Various parts of the city were occupied at various stages in history and this is evident by its varied and irregular fabric. Now the question here is should/ or can an integrated city plan work for Mumbai? How does a planner link all these different sections of the city together under conventional planning methods requires an investigation. The civil society has in various capacities engaging with the city. It is for the first time that large parts of civil society are made to believe the development plan is an instrument to locate all their mandates. Operating mechanisms of AGNI when compared with UDRI, work at different modes and identify with varying concerns. Personally, I see DP as a project generated from UDRI and an imagination of what can be done under the banner of a city plan built on project agendas laid out by UDRI. Civil society to a degree has brought into a format of seeing the city as principles a guideline set out by UDRI. This doesn’t indicate performance strategies of civil society has largely changed. They have under various capacities supported a method of discussion of urban issues, concerns, and problems.

Urban protests against the city planning process in cities like Mumbai are indicators of this failure and point to the need for change in the processes of planning and designing our cities _ It’s not clear, or mostly there isn’t any extended work performed to indicate what are the kind of protests the aggression against the development plan has taken form into. (yes the papers have some kind of news on agencies and their faults - and then there is also Dump the DP + Save Aarey, NAGAR too has something - how much of it is agitation has to be seen) Display of protests orchestrated as part of civil society activities does attract attention but other than that they seem very blunt in their achievements. All the more it reinforces the need to have an official system of redressal other than suggestion and objections. The idea of failure and something new proposed - is a very design-centric modality of approach, almost like the need of another product. The introduction of a scientific planning system into an otherwise unplanned urban agglomeration will definitely have its birthing pains. Question to solve is - What are the adequate methods in proposing plans in already habituated ecosystems? Are the standards imposed sufficient or even feasible for implementation? One dictum to note is to consider planning processes as evolutionary and built on learning of the previous iteration. If that is understood then it’s not the need to change planning system but recognise it as a constantly iterating process with systems in place to accommodate this flux.

The makers of the Plan, MCGM state that Mumbai’s development plan is “largely a spatial plan” with a narrow “sphere of operation” and that all that it can do is to provide “a spatial framework” for “development of land and built space that can fulfil the aspirations of all sections of the society” (Indorewala, 2015) _ Development plan as official document is a land augmentation exercise mostly for tax purposes. Its purpose is to tabulate a plot of land which can generate a stipulated amount of revenue. Thus the necessity of assembling a spatial plan to serve a singular purpose or that is the objective driving the plan production engine. Form for suggestion and objection in the present nature - 60 days time given for redressal of grievances - is a reflection of that. Since its job/ role, as in the municipality, is restricted hence a tool such as the development plan is limited in its preview. It’s now the question of how a planning process is imagined towards addressing the aspirations of the society at large? What exactly are these aspirations? and in what capacities can MCGM address them?Neighbourhood and the city are two different states of operation and how this gap is bridged is an aspect to take note of. Based on what we have seen with earlier citizens area plans and discussions revolving around participation, provision of amenities and better housing presents as overarching factors to claim stake of what is a citizens plan which in effect “fulfils the aspirations of all sections of society”. Should that be all or can there be something more when neighbourhoods are looked at in detail?

The study challenges this notion that views the Development Planning process as a purely technical and scientific activity dominated by the realm of Urban Planning and one that is not in the least sense political. _ Plan has always been political or a culmination of some kind of agenda. Say Charles Correa’s New Bombay was positioned as an agenda to decongest the city. The point is even planners have some kind of prerogative with the proposal of a plan. They too want a city made in a particular way of their seeing. Making of the plan has to an extent always been political. Urban planning hasn’t/ maybe not yet, completely recognised all aspects or ideally not been able to evolve as a profession. The increase in the request for participation is mostly a result of increased awareness. It’s about how urban planning as profession adapts to its shifting climate of operation. This stance reciprocates across design fields thus learnings could interchange where applicable. Mostly it’s got to do with what are or is the form of existing processes to make up an urban plan. This then requires an iteration not change in methods to work with requirements of the time it’s in. An observation in regards to this is the DP consultation process which was conducted in early 2014 with several NGO’s who acted as intermediaries between the MCGM and its planners while representing the city at large. There was also ward wise consultations. Both these were intimated as a result of activism. The problem here is that even though these took place, there was no system of record. As in which of the ideas were selected and which was rejected. It was also, could be a result of the already complicated state of affairs in city planning department. How and what planning mechanisms is implemented and on what scale is a discussion to be promoted at the city administrative level with adequate citizen involvement.

I argue that with a change in the city’s civil society and politics there are multiple influences that have a direct impact on the Development planning process, which need to be modified to respond to these changes in order to be efficient. _ Yes, there should be (maybe it’s already published) version of a model development plan for Indian cities and with this base model as the foundation a custom framework guidelines every plan edition. This plan DP 2014-2034 mostly has the MRTP act and the UDPFI guidelines being made constant “go back” documents. Also is to prepare, with timeline how a present plan will unfold thereby anticipating the next planning process as part of the current mandate to consider.

In order to objectively suggest a working alternative, a prior understanding of the process of the 2014-2034 plan was required, for which the following methodology was adopted _

• Interviews with key actors in the planning process - Four collectives are responsible in shaping a way the city is made to see what a development plan is all about. They are eminent citizens - (Justice BN Srikrishna | Justice S Variwa | Dr FE Udwadia | Dr. R Panda | DM Sukthankar | Sharad Kale | Julio Riberio | Satish Sahney | Cyrus Guzder | Sheilu Sreenivasan | Shirin Bharucha | Pankaj Joshi | Gerson da Cunha | Nayana Kathpalia | Meher Rafaat) - mostly associated with UDRI, the peoples committee/ HSN campaign members - (Aravind Unni | Sitaram Shelar | Marina Joseph | Hussain Indorewalla | Shweta Wagh | Sabah Khan | Purva Dewoolkar | Shweta Damle | Manohar Rajguru), members from the press and planners from both the draft editions of the development planning process. The first lot are the more vocal and directly associated agents respective organisations hence they are/ form the front end of the DP citizens movement of sorts. There has not been any direct effort to list out, though it’s popularly known about a few individuals as in journalists and planners who have played a significant role in presenting/ giving form to drawing out as well as presenting a perceptive of viewing.
  
• Literature review of documents relating the Mumbai DP 2034 _ multiple levels of documents are assembled as bibliography though a consolidated list is/ will be published as mumbaiopendata.org/regulations (a work in progress). A brief overview of the layered document set to ascribe association with the DP 2034 is as follows - The first set forms reading given in the DP preparatory studies report. To that adds planning standards of common discussions, local acts/ regulations and material submitted by several members from the civil society to MCGM. As far as urban design proposals go in the period of this planning process five area management proposals were independently produced. KRVIA + YUVA Malvani Plan, TISS + YUVA M-East Project, Plural Dharavi (Competition winning entry as conducted by UDRI), Studio POD Eastern Water Front Redevelopment and Ratan J Batliboi + Observer Research Foundation Azad Maidan Redevelopment - all are ideas to look at, summarily gauge aspirations of agencies and organisations involved in various capacities informing the development planning process. PEATA organised a selection of presentations for unlocking the earlier draft development plan and development control regulations, these form definite additions to a document set as related to DP 2034.
  
• Understanding of operational concepts like - participatory planning, budgeting, dynamic planning etc. - affordability, inclusive, planning equity, right to the city are some of the other popular terms used. Even development plan and development control regulations as phrases have had detailed readings which should be critiqued.
• Plotting emergence of actors like civil society, media and their impacts on the planning process - all those who have had a voice in the planning process irrespective of their domain have all in some instance paid or have some kind of incentive to be participants. Essentially the development planning process has generated jobs, mostly facilitated activities which sustained interests among individuals to be involved with an idea called the development of Greater Mumbai. It was well submitted as a project during its early stages as once in a lifetime endeavour to do something for the city.
  
• A simulation for a planning sector to re-articulate the process in the given circumstances - the planning sector is the closet, ideally the smallest urban area identified where all planning data is consolidated (according to the MCGM draft DP report of EDDP). This knowledge concentration of sorts was submitted to facilitate area planning proposals during the course of implementation of the development plan though a defined participatory model or so that was the goal. It is worthwhile to audit, possibly by RTI what is the sum total of information/ data available to simulate a planning sector. The planning sector came up in the first place to encourage local area management plans. This in itself is a re-articulated process which increases participation at a local level. Data should ideally be disseminated, possibly from a section of the mcgm.gov.in portal with all information to encourage a greater making of the citizens plan of an area, which via a stipulated process made part of the city development plan.
  
• Given this trajectory, your archiving process would be quite helpful in understanding a chronology of the events as they occurred - the archive that I am trying to assemble is predominantly a collection of records, which were readily accessible to me during a defined period of this DP. Rather than semantic chronology, the assemblage of a document set is to try and record the planning process and context of its production. This archive feeds into the larger city documents repository i.e. mumbaiopendata.org
  

With the aim of making the development planning process open and accessible, your website plays an important role, and wanted to understand the dynamics behind it, and its potential - Ideally if I could locate mumbaiopendata.org it is in the context of several other civil society websites which disseminated content online in the hope of encouraging greater participation in city planning exercises. My task is mostly a result of nine city projects conducted between 2004-'16. These projects (between BArch and MArch thesis) over time accumulates secondary data which is in essence things logged at the time of this writing. Before the city development plan exercise only access to an imagination of the city was via maps which were DP sheets and city guidebooks. Google earth for the entire city was made available around 2005. CRIT had a freemap or a kind of mapping project which am not sure how popular it was. It’s only in the last three years between the two drafts has a substantial in city planning data made available. Though the site/ project aspires to gather information about the metropolitan region for this stage at least till excitement about the development plan dies down. A primary audit proves content gathered are mostly Greater Mumbai specific documents which can assist in drafting up a city plan or area planning exercises within its boundaries.

Your take on what shape is the planning process taking with respect to the emergence of these actors and their impact on it - Form of this planning process if to be defined via a method is to take up timelines MCGM has drawn out for itself and map it against activities which various stakeholders have conducted during course of a production period.

Is the plan relevant in its current form, and what form can it take, especially considering new age technology like open source data sharing and real-time information updates etc. - A city is generally said to reflect its citizens (not sure what the exact quote is here) therefore what the plan should be is only as good as what the collective which is Mumbai mandates for itself. Ideas for the city is quite limited. Only if this change, can there be some anticipation of any new technology applied. To briefly explain Mumbai open data, in its truest sense is generated only at the MCGM or any of its allied planning agencies. There is close to none, in terms of agencies/ organisations/ NGO’s who actually generate data which is reusable without any licensing issues. Open source data is an act within a newer data regime which is not adequacy understood by city organisations. Designers are not educated to operate within this new environment, therefore, it’s unlikely to see any technology based ideas on planning anytime soon from city institutions. Where to plan in Mumbai is more popular than how to plan Mumbai. It’s possible to see a future where planning isn’t a twenty-year policy mandate but a live activity, more or less operating like several of today websites - rather than static periodic model updated because it is required to be updated but something which is dynamic and constantly refreshed based on immediate time-specific requirements.

What role and at what stage can the civil society intervene, and whether a plan can truly emerge as a result of a consensus between the civil society and the civic administration? - I do not recommend a city-wide planning exercise since at the citizens participation level it’s too much to expect. There hasn’t been a single non-governmental plan/ or even an imagination of what the city should be planned as. We have some theoretical ideas in the form of the kinetic city, tactical city, and frothing urbanism but this in any given form hasn’t been adequately tested. Rahul via his many studios has tried to model the kinetic city, it’s not particularly caught on. Area wise planning is to a degree, I think an only tangible route. The city has got its history of city activism which has grown out of the area plan. This if continued can be a sustainable model on several fronts to explore.