Lets Go Solar!
Feb 10, 2013
Feb 3, 2013
Dec 24, 2012
Post-calamity socio-physical reconstruction: Untapped potential of urban planning!
It’s
high time they should care for heritage values of shattered settlements.
 |
| Contemporary planning response : A wake-up call!! |
Any Natural calamity, An Earthquake, A Tsunami, A
Flood or A Hurricane strangles the life of community and leaves a physical and
emotional mark behind! Damage which is irreversible, but still people gather
their spirit and strength and try to reconstruct that which has been shattered,
their home, their neighborhood, their community, their village, their city, sometimes
on their own sometimes hand in hand with community, with the support of
government and with the aid and good wishes from around the world. It’s a
collective effort of those who care to rebuild, those who feel responsibility
to reconstruct, everyone contributes their bit!
A relevant question to ask here is that what an urban planner, an architect, an urban designer, a conservationist or a policy
maker can do to restore the faith, hope and dignity of that community, How they
can better contribute in the socio-physical reconstruction after an unforeseen natural
calamity which physically shatters the settlement, a settlement which might
have evolved in course of centuries whether it’s a village or a small town or a
metropolitan city. Of course such situations demand a quick immediate response,
a fast solution, a resettlement plan, a re-construction effort, a physical
master plan to absorb and protect the affected population as quickly as possible;
an infrastructure fast and techno-economically optimized enough to be viable. But
in this race of providing the immediate comfort and amenities to the affected
population we usually tend to forget or sometimes purposefully ignore the very
basic need of community, the settlement itself, the fabric of settlement with
which community has intimately remained attached throughout its life, probably
they have grown together help shaping each other and hence the highly emotional
bonding of community and settlement cannot be ignored neither its legacy of
heritage value and learning.
In a neighborhood or community affected or
devastated by natural calamity, an individual is not just bothered about his or
her own loss, their own damaged house, but they are subconsciously also moved
by the loss of others in the community and their very own settlement and
neighborhood which has been shattered heavily. Their memories of growing in
that neighborhood, those winding streets, their facades and architecture, their
community spaces, those lingering familiarities and so on. We can try to reconstruct
the original face of settlement if the damage is low and concealable, but
sometimes they feel it’s better to reconstruct the settlement in adjacent open
lands if the physical damage is much, this phenomenon is more noticeable and
even more a point of concern in the rural or small urban communities. Usually physical
planning response form the government and planners after a natural calamity in
most of the cases is generally a super-optimized techno-economic solution, an efficient
physical infrastructure, fast paced architecture, but surprisingly lacking in
emotional response and nativeness in terms of architecture, lacking in regional
impression and heritage values of planning, alienated from urban/ rural design principles
and practices of the region, a shear absence of conservationist inputs and
above all lack of human touch. Outcome seems an efficient but emotionless physical
planning response which can and are being radially justified in the name of
constrained resources and urgency of demanded action. Image above speaks for
itself!
Though a much needed temporary relief, imagine the
emotional and functional pain this new mechanical re-settlement master plan causes
to the inhabitants in longer course of time through its totally alienated new
physical planning environment, fabric and architecture, by continually
reminding them of the disaster which occurred in past, due to its ever-present imposed
unfamiliar environment. Imaging the continual struggle to adapt to this new
imposed “efficient but rigid” neighborhood plan which has no relation
whatsoever to the original form and architecture of the village or town which
was devastated in earthquake or else and the loaded feeling of never to return
to a spatial experience in their lifetime which even vaguely resembles to their
original neighborhood or to a locality with its regional character! Imaging the
loss to the future generation who is going to grow up in these reconstructed integrated prefab concrete township or villages with identical kind of off the shelf household
unit next to the fading ruins of their devastated ancestral village and who
will never know how it is like to live in the vibrant settlements were their
parents, their grandparents and their ancestors used to live!
It’s high time that the legacy of heritage planning
values, unique and integral to specific regions need to be acknowledged and
incorporated in the post disaster reconstruction efforts specially in physical
planning of the settlement which will have a long term beneficial effect. Even
the communities in crying need of immediate physical reconstruction support, in
a post-natural-disaster environment, need a physical planning solution with a “human touch”!
Dec 21, 2012
What are the urban planning challenges today?
Inferences
from review of JNNURM CDP & Appraisal Reports!
Following
sectoral list of “Urban Planning Challenges” have been compiled based on data
extracted and analyzed from JNNURM Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for selected
cities of India and its appraisal reports. Though these aspects are generalized
and somewhat overlapping across most of the urban nodes of Indian sub-continent,
lessons and inferences can be equally valuable and applicable for other cities across
the world to considerable extent. It’s just an effort to have a consolidated
perspective and understanding of future urban challenges, you can further suggest
additional planning constraints and challenges to the list!
Comprehensive list of Urban Planning Challenges-
INSTITUTIONAL
Functional
overlap
Jurisdictional
overlap
Issues of
convergence and coordination
POLICY
Lack of
stakeholder consultations or under-participation
Disaster
management issues
Governance
issues
Delegation
of functions to the new ULB
Prioritizationof action and projects alienated from problems and vision
Matters
of resource sharing with neighboring states
ECONOMIC
Lack of
value-add sectors
Expansion
of informal sector
Continued
influx of low skill manpower from neighboring states in some cases
Expanding
un-organized sector
Lower
work participation rates of women at some places
SOCIAL
Issues of
urban sociology in a multi-ethnic city
Social
unrest,
Civil
disobedience,
Public
safety,
Unemployment,
MUNICIPAL
FINANCE
Unstructured
financial profile of urban local bodies
Capital
investment requirement
High
level of dependency on state government grants
Un-assessed
properties for property tax base
Tax rates
not being revised regularly
Irregular
flow of specific grants
Irregular
servicing of debt
PROPERTY
Low
coverage of properties by taxation
Low
collection efficiency,
Inefficient
user charge
SLUMS
& URBAN POOR
Security
of tenure
Quality
of housing
Access to
infrastructure
Rehabilitation
and resettlement
Problem
of sanitation
Community
toilets
Inadequate
night shelters and security
High
density with poor infrastructure
Issue of
‘unapproved slums’
PLANNING
Infrastructure
deficits
Unplanned
growth
Constraint
on growth in city areas due to natural or environmental constraints
Increasing
gap between demand and supply
Inadequacies
in the basic services in unauthorized clusters
Encroachment,
Non-confirming
land use
Missing
link between physical and fiscal planning
Protecting,
conserving and managing heritage resources
Skewed
spatial density distribution
TRANSPORT
Limited
road space
Shortage
of public transport system
Regional
traffic through the city
Inadequate
management of streetlights
Problems
of roads and transport during festival season
Congestion
in the old city areas
Lack of
facilities for NMV
Rapid
increase in vehicles
Lack of
land use transport integration
Inadequate
facilities for physically challenged, pedestrians
Inadequate
parking
Multiplicity
of agencies
WATER
Nonrevenue
water
Leakages
Losses in
distribution network and transmission main
Inequitable
Distribution
Obsolete
distribution system
High
energy cost in water production and Distribution
Ground
water pollution
Water
supply Vs storage capacity gap
Ground
water depletion
Problems
of water supply on specific festival days
Unequal
intra-city distribution
Inefficient
network hydraulics,
Old and
dilapidated networks
High
pollution in distribution network
River/
Sea odor
Lack or
failure of river action plans
SEWAGE
Limited
sewerage treatment facility,
Release
of untreated municipal waste into rivers
Release
of untreated waste into natural drains and open grounds
Disposal
of industrial effluent into the city rivers,
Soft soil
condition
Storm
water management
DRAINAGE
Frequent
floods
Lack of
proper drainage system
Silting
Uncontrolled
solid waste dumping causing blockage,
Stagnation
of water & waste water runoff
Backflow
of water from the river system
Flooding
during monsoon season
SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT (SWM)
Absence
of effective primary collection mechanism
Inadequacy
of waste dumping sites
Lack of
scientific waste disposal
Continued
use of open dustbins
Un-segregated
waste disposal
Land
availability for sanitary dump sites
Issue of
industrial slag
HEALTH
CARE
Inadequate
bed strength
Ill-equipped
and inadequate operation theatre in some government hospitals
Ill-equipped
corporation dispensaries and health posts
Unsafe
hospital waste disposal practice
ENVIRONMENTAL
Depletion
and pollution of water resources,
Degradation
of forest cover
Deteriorating
air quality
High
incidence of environmental health problems
NATURAL
Earthquake
Fire
Possibility
of epidemic events
Dec 8, 2012
How representative are “Top something or other City” tags?
Why
average outcome doesn’t work for average urban population?
Why city ranking may not
necessarily be a reflection of the state and policies of a city and might not
be of much direct or immediate relevance for average stable urban population
other than attracting business and outside population and tourists? A city
provides and should provide a very unique opportunity to each individual
through its unique micro environmental influences which most often supersedes
the average ambient environment of a city which is showcased by positioning of
a city on varied ranking scale ranging from livability to competitiveness and
so on. An average ambient environment of any city (economically or otherwise)
might not be a reflection of actual environment for an individual or unique
sets of individuals with similar needs, like - people falling under different
hierarchical economic profiles from extremely poor to ultra-rich, working and
voluntarily non-working population, skilled and unskilled section, jobless
people, children, aging population, differently abled segment, entrepreneurs,
educationalist, illiterate population, people with health and lifestyle
issues, government representatives,
corporate lobbies and countless urban social hierarchies and so on and on, each
segment with differing needs and aspiration seeking and demanding distinct
opportunities and support structure! That “n”th global or national rank of a
city which is representation of average situation of city life doesn’t make
much immediate sense to each of the above segments since most of the population
is either one side or other of average with their very distinct situations and
needs from the projected average. It’s not much of relevance unless it gets
translated into their customized needs, enhanced economic condition, lifestyle
and peace of mind and doesn’t directly relate to their livelihood opportunities
and their specific needs.
Apparently, there is a
fundamental issue with the methodology and process of determining rank of a
city. An issue with “Samplifying” the population, though samples apparently
being inclusive and heterogeneous! Simply being inclusive won’t work, choosing
a heterogeneous sample groups also won’t, because both of these approach will
only lead to an average outcome, a clumsy generalized outcome which is bound to
be alienated from the highly specific needs of individual components and groups
which makes the society, which makes that supposedly heterogeneous and
inclusive sample as well. Needs of a highly diversified society or a city with
further diversified economic profile, age group, ethnicity, regional needs,
conditioning and so on can’t be met by a single average solution, no matter how
inclusive that solution sounds, no matter how heterogeneous was the sample. For
example, you can’t simply average out the needs of a beggar and a millionaire,
both part and parcel of a city, and come up with an average solution which
should work for both of them. They need totally different solutions to grow and
sustain. Hence the ranking of city based on accumulative impression of its
different components, both tangible and perceived, which is an “Average” might
give a deceptive impression of opportunities which any city provides for its
inhabitants, does that sweeping statement like the best city to live in or so
means that this particular city provides equal or ample growth opportunities for
millionaires as well as the poorest section of the city or to the diversified
segments as discussed earlier, or does it anyway gives an account or impression
of having diversified livelihood instruments and strategies in form of public
policies for different strata of city society. Public strategies and instruments are very distinct and regional in nature which can’t be quantified
in a manner to be compared globally or nationally on a same appraisal scape
with other cities! We need a very tender approach to deal with specifics of
urban livelihood opportunities and state of its people, ranking seems over
simplification at times, we need to do a reality check!
All said and done we still
agree that city ranking is must, whether on the scale of livability or
competitiveness or so on! Because it gives a scale of competitiveness on which
city heath is monitored and compared with the benchmarked cities. A scale, on
which the growth performance of a city can be monitored! Hence it helps shape
the aspirations of a city and helps pave the way for its sustainable future.
City ranking has a larger purpose to serve than just to conclude the state of infrastructure and ambient environment, city ranking creates an image of a city
which further draws attention of world and hence attracts investment and
generate revenues which further gets channelized in the making of a city
through increased economic activities, strengthened infrastructure, enhanced
regional accessibility, increased livelihood opportunities and so on. But apparently
still city ranking is more of the external representation through its image
building aspect than the state of actual internal health and opportunities in a
city! Also a catch here, while creating a positive image of a city through
ranking tools, originally envisaged to attract business and high spending
population i.e. tourists, corporate activities etc., this enhanced image also
accelerates the process of in-migration from the neighboring regions in search
of better projected livelihood opportunities which further calls for urgent
expansion of already constrained city infrastructure, delay of which can cause
the damage to the same city image which they are deliberately trying to create,
hence an image deficit vicious cycle. Focus has to be on autonomous networked
decentralization in the region through regional ranking instead of / in
addition to city ranking which otherwise encourages choking concentration of
city. City doesn’t function in isolation; it’s a resultant of overlapping
regional activities hence the focus should be on regional ranking, a periodic
regional assessment, assessment beyond SWOT, call it ranking or whatever, which
is much inclusive and more realistic in nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)