impractical competitions
Between the thematic consultations and the PLU [proposed land use stage] two competitions has been invited for participation by YUVA Urban and UDRI respectively. Due to the nature of submitted problems and mechanics of engagement both have failed to attract any participation from the “people”/ the stakeholders for whom either of them are vehemently engaging with the official planning agencies. With all the vision plans in place it is indeed surprising that there is a visible lethargy from the agencies to capitalise on the various platforms/ programs implemented by themselves to push the local voice. Other than meetings there is definitely a lack of imagination in engagements at various level. Both the cases have their own unique problems. Starting with the YUVA proposal is the call to ideate a multidimensional representation of the published development plan. Failure of project could be simply its lack of any adequate incentivisation. Attractive prizes and an exhibition in a not so popular public location would have prevented any brain cells being invested for probing further the suggested discussion. Elaborating the proposal itself if there is sufficient intellectual poweress submissions could be solicited. But in this case an extremely, seemly primal, device of the map is asked to be reimagined. This to a degree is the probable error in the problem. A development plan is accompanied by its codes and rules via which the proposal is intended to be implemented. What the brief requested has been to integrate two documents into a singular entity and thus the multidimensionality of the map. Both [DP and its regulations] are technical instruments. The brief could have helped with an elaboration by additional background information or attributed to a larger set of objectives. As a standalone probe the investigation loses its purpose to a degree. A multidimensional map could if envisioned adequately is an object of the vision plan and not the outcome of a planning task. This stance has somehow been missed by the authors of the brief. Moving on to the UDRI scheme, it’s a complete well frameworked submitted problem. Unlike the previous condition the incentives though opulent comes with a catch. And therein lies all that is wrong with the brief [according to those who are trying/ tried to participate]. The competition requires an assembly of multidisciplinary professionals to generate an updated detailed plan for Dharavi. As an idea towards collaborative practise is acceptable but to enforce as criteria and then request an abnormally inappropriate entry fee [locally feasible] is the first defence of deterrence. The next is obviously the area in itself. At every possible city level conference or any international discussion on the city has been entered via the shadow city Dhavavi. A set of local ideas in terms of proposals and agencies discussing the region has been a dominating pursuit for a while. Requesting this reinvention to a degree almost comes off as hypocritical as there is lack of recognition of the work already performed for the region. Beyond these are plagued with concerns of data discrepancy as distributed in the resources section. Seemingly provided information to cover all aspects of the region is thwarted when proposals to say the economic plan or the health plan is to be attempted. Data gaps in the disseminated set questions the practicality of proposing an integrated all inclusive and detailed plan of the area. The submission requirements clearly details out what it needs but is proportionally unfavourable to invest in as the proposed awards, even if achieved is unable to given in the returns to the time invested. The brief has definitely via its high speciality and high demands closed out the possibility of a local submission to the project. For agencies who aspire to be the voice of the people a simple task of getting a competition in place that anyone from the region of its activism would want to participate has proved too much. If they can’t even get this simple task right can their views on participatory planning exercises be considered credible? The question is definitely on the means via which they are going about doing the tasks they feel can be considered as participatory. Miniature disasters such as failed competitions are indicators to the larger question on applicability of approaches that can be proven as appropriate in soliciting participation for area, city and regional planning exercises.
three dimensions is better than two
requesting only international ideas
