Processes of planning and allotment of resources in the city have relied predominantly on the abstract standards and norms given for specific regions — standards that work like thumb-rules, determining the percentage of a particular reservation, based on the population that the reservation has to serve. The Development Plan, and the reservations made therein, are manifestations of planning based on such thumb rules and norms, dictating the distribution and allotment of land as a resource for ‘public’ and ‘private’ uses in the City.

Such planning however fails to take cognisance — commenting here particularly on public spaces — of the varying nature of associations that different groups of people have with public spaces. Such groupings could be economic, based on age or even on gender. Thus, while classical ‘lungs’ such as open greens, maidans, waterfront-promenade developments, public gardens etc. continue to form the predominant definitions of what constitutes ‘public spaces”, the experience of Mumbai seems to provide ample evidence to the production of various “other public spaces” by different groups of people, reflecting their interests and aspirations. In fact, our studies of existing open spaces in the city — Shivaji Park and Oval Maidan — have revealed that the comparative ‘public-ness’ of these open spaces lies in their ability or inability to be able to act as a harbour for various interest groups (and their smaller unplanned public spatial formations). The production of such ‘unplanned’ spaces lies outside the present realm of the planning process. Consequently, the Development Plan — the state’s essential tool for planned distribution of land as a resource — remains devoid of this softer understanding of the aspirations and perceptions of interest groups, and the nature of their associations with and use of public spaces.

Most existing open spaces in the city are either occasional destination points or picnic spots — such as Borivali National Park. Out of what remains for everyday activities, most open spaces are being appropriated for private use, through programmes such as private clubs, or because they are connected to institutions such as schools. This seriously limits the quantum of ‘open spaces as public spaces’, available to the common public for daily use. Newer paradigms of public spaces are being defined through elitist and highly restrictive/exclusive programmes such as shopping malls, club-houses and entertainment parks such as Esselworld. These seem to follow a market logic which serves the interests of the elite consumers and developers, more than of the common public. It is vital for usat this juncture to be able to redefine what constitutes the realm of the ‘public’ and the ‘everyday’. In Mumbai, the notion of “open spaces as public spaces” is being challenged, and is in need of review.

(more…)