plan / design

after a long meeting- from 11.30 to 5.30 discussing the finer points of the policy recommendations to be sent to the government regarding cess and slum areas the schism between urban planning and urban design was apparent. the fundamental premise of the pilot studies was that a ‘precinct wise development could consolidate infrastructure and open spaces, making sense of the staccato and fragmented development currently in full swing in the city. somehow it could bridge the gap between the ‘good’ for the city and private interests. and as a design strategy it worked. when that had to be translated into policy we came to a serious roadblock. how can the varied strategies that emerged for the redevelopment/ renewal / protection of areas become generalisable in some way?

policy seems to be framed in a non-geographical space. it knows no specifics and therefore refuses to make exceptions, except through long winded amendments. i kept thinking that if on the other hand geography or space became the framework for the framing of policy as against the exceptions to the rule, there might be a way to resolve this conflict.