[Urbanstudy] Whose Planning and on whose behalf and the slums that save us!

[solomon benjamin]

Dear all,
a consideration of the plans that surround us. First,
an except from an email sent to me (despite its
duslism):
New Orleans vs. Mumbai

Inches of rain in new orleans due to hurricane
katrina... 18" 
mumbai (July 27th).... 37.1" 

population of new orleans... 484,674 
population of mumbai.... 12,622,500 

deaths in new orleans within 48 hours of katrina...100

deaths in mumbai within 48hours of rain.. 37. 

number of people to be evacuated in new orleans...
entire city..wohh 
number of people evacuated in mumbai...10,000 

Cases of shooting and violence in new orleans...
Countless 
Cases of shooting and violence in mumbai.. NONE 

Time taken for US army to reach new orleans... 48hours

Time taken for Indian army and navy to reach mumbai...
12hours 

status 48hours later...new Orleans is still waiting
for relief, army and electricity   
status 48hours later. Mumbai is back on its feet and
is business is as usual 

USA ...world's most developed nation 
India ...third world country
***************

SB: I was reminded in a comment in Sukuntu Mehta's
book Maximum City that if the same population density
of Mumbai lived more commonly in the US, systems
including 'law and order' would break down -- or
something like that. And one needs to read even more
vivid description of daily city life in 'Shantaram'
(Gregory Roberts) to suggest that perhaps the
wonderful thing about cities is the way economic,
political, legality, and social space gets redefined
-- a fluidness far benond the moral positioning by
planners -- espicially those arguing for
'participatory planning'. 

Moving beyond the moralistic and into systems of
control, the point in the comparasion with New Orleans
is the way cities and towns in the US and UK are
located in a system of stringent control made possible
by planning. One only has to read accounts in books
like 'Black Corona' about participatory planning in
NYC and its politics, or then the experience of urban
renewal in Boston of the 1960s and 70s, or accounts of
Madhu Sarin's Chandigarh, or Fedric Thomas's Calcutta,
to appreciate that what really works in Mehta's and
Shantaram's Bombay is that it is slummified so well! I
refer to here not a debate of the 74th, CA and if the
participatory process is linked to that or not. 
Instead I am pointing to the centrality of politics,
the value of anachism, of fluidity, of
un-predictability, which planners and administrators
find great unease. More recently, they are joined by
donors, organizations like HDFC, ICICI, FICCI, CII, or
CEOs like Kiran Mazumdar Shah (Biocon) or Philips' CEO
Bob Hoeskatra -- all seeking to make our cities
globally competitive. Why is it for instance, that the
recent book by Jagmohan reads so much like the essays
of Kalpana Sharma, or that the manifesto of the
bangalore Social Forum like that of the FICCI and CII
(except for two points of inc. FDI, and land
acquistion!)?
What is the conceptual value of having fuzzy
categories like Civil Soceity, decentralization,
participation, planning, 'the law', good governance,
'balancing needs and resources in equitable and
efficient ways', when all these essentially refer
processes of politics?

well, more later
Solly

--- AZplan <plan at architexturez.net> wrote:
> Hi
> I get the impression that the planning role
> contemplated for ULBs in the
> 74th is being confused with Master Plan / CDP. These
> are complementary but
> different levels of plans. The 74th itself does not
> contemplate either CDP
> by ULBs or substitution of CDP with local area
> planning by ULBs.
> Justifications for urbanism alternatives (without
> CDP) need to be
> constructed on basis other than the 74th. The
> *constitutional* position
> requires CDP / Master Plan / city region plans under
> statutes for those
> (many of which also settle processes for sub-city /
> zonal plans) and
> within their ambit, under ULB Acts duly modified in
> view of the 74th,
> sub-zonal / local / use-premise plans by ULBs. (the
> 74th does not repeal
> other planning / development Acts!)
> 
> The planning process under the 74th remains fuzzy,
> but processes for
> plan-making and modification, inclusive of
> participation at various stages
> including by ULBs at all stages, are well settled
> under the CDP etc
> regimes (and since these are designed to achieve
> overall planning purpose
> of balancing needs and resources in equitable and
> efficient ways, an
> *elitist* CDP is likely to have emerged out of a
> process that is outright
> illegal rather than merely vaguely
> *unconstitutional*).
> 
> Regardless of whether all consider it necessary to
> come to grips with the
> concept of planning, it is necessary for all
> inclined to participate in
> planning to be clear about the level of plan in
> which they wish to
> participate (for responsible participation and also
> so as not to infringe
> the rights of others to participate) and to ensure
> that they participate
> in a manner that strengthens rather than undermines
> the statutory
> processes that guarantee the right to participate
> (at various levels in
> different ways).
> 
> What seems to be happening is that in name of 74th
> constittional amendment
> statutory processes for participation in CDP /
> Master Plan are being
> eroded while even a minimal systemic approach to
> participation at the
> local area plan level has yet to be articulated.
> This is even as the same
> logic that argues against a CDP based approach
> argues also for
> participation at various levels and stages of
> urbanism. It is all very
> well to take issue with the *centrality of a statist
> process like the
> Plan* through CDP Public Notice, but it would be
> meaningful only if
> accompanied by a complete visualisation of an
> alternative urbanism, with
> its institutions. I am even inclined to posit that
> otherwise it would be
> *unconstitutional*, which is fine as an academic
> exercise as long as it
> does not make illegal / unconstitutional CDP
> mechanics an issue!
> 
> (I speak from recent experience of engaging with
> Delhi Master Plan
> revision since it started in 1999-2000. These
> engagements include revival
> of Public Notice process, in a Zonal Plan level case
> in 2002 against an
> ad-hoc scheme to precipitate Public Notice, to which
> over 1700 families
> responded in context of Zonal level plan
> entitlements and prior efforts in
> their pursuit. There have been about two dozen
> Public Notices since then
> before the Master Plan Public Notice itself. I am
> also associated with
> some court matters on grounds of lapses in statutory
> participation
> processes (invariably on account of extra-statutory
> participatory
> processes). I am posting this only for information
> of this perspective of
> participation in planning, in continuation of a
> previous post containing
> the link to where some of the engagements in Delhi
> are loosely chronicled:
> http://plan.architexturez.net/site/).
> 
> cheers
> Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> 
> 
> 
> > 9th September 2005
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > Interesting debate! I think at the base of
> tensions are the tensions
> > between
> > the modern and the post-modern. Many of us are
> cought up in this tension
> > and
> > are subtely experiencing the resergence of the
> post-modern. The questions
> > such as...
> >
> >
> > a) What constitutes 'civil society' and the nature
> of
> >>'debate'?
> >>b) are the 'affected people' passive reciepients"
> >>c) what are the various forms of politics that we
> can
> >>visualize? is it that of the day to day, that of
> >>election time? that at particular levels of
> >>government?
> >>d) Which part or section of 'breaucracy'?
> >>
> > ...those raised by Solly are vocal testimony to
> this. The legitimacy that
> > represantative politics enjoyed is suddenly
> finding its base being
> > systematically invaded. Those of us including
> 'civil organisations' are
> > not
> > able make sense as to what has hit them.  Now that
> post-modern ideas are
> > gaining significant ground there is increased
> questioning of the
> > represantative model that has been the hall mark
> of modernism for few
> > centuries.  This also includes the questioning of
> election based politics
> > and focus on everyday politics. Also the
> transformation in concept of
> > 'public' as passive resipient to active subjects
> without any need for
> > 'represantative' cover from any one.
> >
> > Those of us grounded in modernist ideas are
> finding it increasingly
> > challenging, first to comprehend and then to
> transform the long held dear
> > ideas! 'Civil Society' is pregnant with this
> tension to define itself yet
> > again and guard against elitist take over and
> hegemonize.
> >
> > I have thought through these issues after
> participating in the last
> > workshop
> > of Sarai on August 30-31 2005 as part of
> Sarai-CSDS student stipenship for
> > year 2004-05 specially the inputs from Solly,
> Prabhu Mahapatra, Sadan Jha,
> > Aarti and Deepu and with my discussions there
> after with Lillian D'Costa
> > from Goa.
> >
> > Sebastian Rodrigues.
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: solomon benjamin <sollybenj at yahoo.co.in>
> >>To: jayaraj s <jrajaya at yahoo.com>
> >>CC: urbanstudygroup at sarai.net
> >>Subject: Re: [Urbanstudy] who is the "public",
> what is the 'plan',and who
> >>consults on whose behalf?
> >>Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:15:27 +0100 (BST)
> >>
> >>Hi, a useful response and some more questions --
> esp
> >>on the last lines:
> >>civil society organisations analyse and expose the
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
__________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com