Do we really need a development 'plan'?
A plan is a very modernist conception. A plan first defines an achievable objective assuming that all the parameters will be under control (which is a fallacious assumption), and goes on to execute to achieve a specific goal.
A plan is a very modernist conception. A plan first defines an achievable objective assuming that all the parameters will be under control (which is a fallacious assumption), and goes on to execute to achieve a specific goal.
In case of a development plan, 'development' implies a process which is incomplete/incremental while the 'plan' contradictingly talks about a finite, static plan of action. Thus, the term "Development Plan" is ironic. Such a plan is never planned for a developing city/region, it assumes a particular growth (most of the times, it works with older statistics, on the basis of which the future may be (inaccurately?) speculated). What then, is the actual value of a plan?
The plan considers 'resources' as finite. Is it so? Are resources finite? Resources are biological processes - cyclic in nature. Thus, can we think of cultivating resources for the future rather than always getting entangled in the idea of effective consumption of available resources? We always miss out this point. The idea of sustainability also has always been about limited consumption for prolonging use of available resources and never about cultivating more resources for future.
Land is finite for development, Neera Adarkar said. But we have already pushed this limit by reclaiming huge amounts of sea - and thereby creating land. Look at Dubai, Mumbai, Japan - I think one can give so many examples. Japan's proposals of development projects on sea are ready! So can we really consider land as finite? Today, land is 'generated' - after all, land is just a surface for developers. It is only the environmentalists or some other activists who think of land as a resource. Otherwise, land can be created!
We love the post modern ad-hoc conditions of the city. We love to celebrate the hawkers, we love to talk of the slums, we love to talk about the 'new' urbanism or the pluralism of the post-modern city. I think that no city would function without its three basic tiers - the rich industrialists/corporates, the aspiring middle class, and the lower class people. This hierarchy is definitely the key to the success of the city. Each city has to plan for the rich and the middle class and allow the slums to exist. If one wants to eradicate the slums, he/she has to be ready to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the house maid who washes utensils at his/her house. Only then one would be allowing the right amount of hygiene to exist in slums. In other words, a house maid can only afford a slum in Rs. 500/- that we pay now.
A very interesting and reasonable answer that Neera Adarkar provided was that we (primarily the middle class and the rich) have to acknowledge the fact that the poor get 'free houses' by the government, in case they do so, and not compare it with our status, making it a 'rights' issue. To give an example, we feel too cheated on issues like reservations (we know the kind of protest that went on for long) - which essentially were possible solutions for eradication of illiteracy. Unfortunately, reservation policies were tactically exploited by people who were ineligible.
To begin with, perhaps we have to define, what kind of people are we looking to occupy our city? If the city is a system, then I hold my three-tier theory's presence for the city's effective functioning. Modernist notions (which we still follow today by defining our goals as achievable) consider all people as equal (and thereby divide resources equally). The relation between the three tiers and consumption of resources by these may be unequal - even completely contrasting. The fallacy of the modernist method may be its failure to allocate wrong amount of resources to wrong kind of people. Right now, resources are distributed based on availability of money. There is no relationship established/studied between the three tiers and consumption pattern . If money does not remain at the centre of planning process, perhaps something could be achieved, However, if money is to pivot the function of development, we are bound to have the same cycles of problems again. At the same time, desires and aspirations can not be handled through modernist planning principles since:
1. They can not be quantified
2. They are not finite (Buddhist philosophy).
(therefore, the whole premise of this vertical studio for me, is fallacious. Since it talks about executing a strong modernist action plan and discusses the city as the post modern condition!)
1. They can not be quantified
2. They are not finite (Buddhist philosophy).
(therefore, the whole premise of this vertical studio for me, is fallacious. Since it talks about executing a strong modernist action plan and discusses the city as the post modern condition!)
Anyway,
I could keep on talking, and this could become (or has already become?) a research paper.
For the time being, I propose that we re-name the next "Development Plan" as a "Development Framework". Unlike a plan (which works with fixed entities), a framework allows and adjusts according to changing systems & resources. We have to develop frameworks for future and not plans. Yes, as Neera ma'am said, they could be prototypes - small pods. What I recall is Japan's "Metabolist Movement" which acknowledges change and brings it to the centre of development. We are yet to understand it perhaps...
