从贾玛清真寺俯瞰德里 / View of Delhi from Jama Masjid. Pic: Ryan/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

德里的2041年总体规划，是时候自下而上重新思考城市规划了
As Delhi works on Master Plan 2041, time to rethink city plans from the bottom up

由专筑网亚森君，小R编译

城市，无论是过去还是现在，通常都根据其统治者的意愿创建。特别是印度，历经朝代和帝国的兴衰变化，“统治者”意愿的特征尤其明显。然而，在所有为人民而建的宏伟建筑中，城市肌理——这一城市结构却反映了人民的自发智慧。

虽然城市规划的概念可以追溯到印度河流域、埃及和美索不达米亚文明等古代文明时代，但现代城市的规模却远超过去、空前庞大。迅速激增的人口、不断增加的城市密度，无不体现出当前亟需富有远见的城市规划方案，以规划现代城市空间布局。

印度独立后，其主要城市开始编制城市总体规划，有计划地指导城市发展和增长。事实上，德里发展局（DDA）目前发布了德里未来20年的总体规划草案，德里市民必须理解草案及其内容，并进一步参与其中，从而更好的将总体规划变为“人民的规划”。


什么是城市总体规划？

20世纪50年代，印度各州开始采用《城镇和乡村规划法案》(TCPA)，该法案是基于英国类似的规划法案制定。《城镇和乡村规划法案》(TCPA)规定，各州、市的发展部门或法定机构可根据其自身情况进行组建，目的是以城市规划和发展为目标。德里发展管理局(DDA)是根据《德里发展法案》，于1957年在印度成立的首个地方发展管理局，其设立初衷是营造健康的生活环境。长期以来，印度的总体规划一直被视为是通过分析现有情况，预测未来人口和相关基础设施需求，编制土地利用计划和发展控制条例以指导城市增长和发展的官方规划工具。


谁负责编制德里城市总体规划?

就德里而言，根据1957年《德里发展法案》第7条，德里发展管理局负责制定德里城市总体规划。根据《德里发展法案》第11-A条要求，总体规划每20年更新一次，每次修改和完善后，需经由中央政府进一步批准。同时，《德里发展法案》第12条还赋予德里发展管理局授权开发指定土地的权利。

到目前为止，德里发展管理局已经制定了三个总体规划《总体规划1962》、《总体规划2001》、《总体规划2021》，我们即将看到德里的第四个城市总体规划，《总体规划2041》。


总体规划的主要内容是什么?

总体规划包含对城市、预计人口、未来发展区的展望，通过配合发展控制条例、赋予土地用途指引（即，不同土地面积对应不同利用开发），最后指明特定部门的政策方向，涉及生态、城市经济、住房、社会和物质基础设施以及交通等领域。

Cities, past and present, have been often created in the image of its rulers. Indian cities, in particular, have been witness to the rise and fall of dynasties and empires, reflected in their ever shifting character. However, amongst all its grand constructions for the people, there exists within the urban fabric a continuous patchwork of creations by the people.
While the concept of a planned city traces its roots to ancient civilisations like the Indus Valley, Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilisations, the scale of modern cities is unprecedented. Burgeoning populations and rising densities created the need for a visionary document to chart out the spatial layout of the city.
In the post-independence era, major Indian cities began the preparation of Master Plans with the objective to guide planned development and growth. In fact, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is currently in the process of publishing the draft Master Plan for Delhi, envisioning the next 20 years and it is important for citizens of Delhi to understand the document, its contents and how one can further engage in making the Master Plan a people’s document.

What is a Master Plan?
In the 1950s, Indian states began to adopt Town and Country Planning Acts (TCPA), largely based on similar planning acts in the UK. As an outcome of the TCPA, Development Authorities or Statutory Bodies were formed under their own acts, with the objective of city planning and development. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was the first such development authority to be set up in India in 1957 under the DDA Act, with its initial objective of creating healthy living environments. Master Plans in India have long been viewed as a formal tool for guiding the growth and development of cities through the preparation of existing situation analysis, future population projections and related infrastructure demand, land use plans and development control regulations.

Who is in charge of making the Delhi Master Plan?
In Delhi’s case, the Delhi Development Authority is responsible for preparation of the master plan as per Section 7 of the DDA Act 1957. The Master Plan is updated every 20 years as per Section 11-A, which mandates modifications to the Plan and further approval by the Central Government. Section 12 of the DDA act gives DDA authority for Development of notified lands.
DDA has so far prepared three master plans (MPD 1962, MPD 2001 and MPD 2021) and we are about to see the city’s 4th master plan, MPD 2041.

What are the broad contents of a Master Plan?
The Master Plan contains a vision for the city, projected populations, future development areas through assignment of land uses attached to development control regulations ( that is, how much you can build on what plot size etc) and finally sector-specific policy directions — pertaining to Ecology, Urban Economy, Shelter, Social & Physical Infrastructure and Mobility.


代表性图像（德里 Vaishali 的住宅区。图片：Nikhil B/Wikimedia Commons（CC BY-SA 4.0）/ Representational image (Residential area in Vaishali, Delhi. Pic: Nikhil B/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

总体规划是否真的对指导城市有计划的发展起作用？

技术专家和研究人员发现，大多数总体规划都缺乏引导城市发展的作用，这是因为它们无法系统地、全局性地控制城市扩张，或者职住关系无法像既定规划那样发展。城市是动态的实体，目前的规划工具，尚未跟上我们迅速发展的城市体系的步伐。

印度总体规划失败的另一个根本原因是，总体规划编制过程缺乏民众参与。过去，无论公众参与了多少，这一“参与”本质上都只是象征性的。然而目前，规划者和城市管理者已经承认了这一缺陷，并且正认真努力地促使城市规划更具包容性。

在进行《总体规划2041》的筹备过程中，举行了多场公众咨询会议，并广泛邀请各利益相关方参与其中，包括区域机构、各个市场商会、房地产团体、学科专家、专业机构、青少年、残疾人士等。这些咨询帮助德里发展管理局了解了现有的地方层面的问题，并收集了来自不同利益相关者的5000多个愿景陈述，这是开启《总体规划2041》的关键步骤。


普通公民的愿景是否反映在总体规划中?

从一开始，总体规划就主要涉及土地及其利用。从历史上看，这导致城市总体规划将重点放在少数土地所有者/房地产集团的愿望上，而不是大多数移民人口的需求，这些人在城市中有着模糊的利益关系。由此可见，发展主管部门、顾问、各个城市利益相关者、公民团体和学术界之间的分歧明显。丰富多样的城市观点，经常导致各种意识形态冲突和争斗。


在试图达成集体共识时会发生哪些冲突，比如？

在孟买，当阿雷殖民地（即城市绿肺）被划为开发地带时，环保人士、社区领袖和市民走上街头抗议，而房地产游说团体则支持这一举措。

在班加罗尔，班加罗尔发展管理局对该城市进行规划的权威受到了质疑，因为公民活动家认为，根据第74条宪法修正案，城市规划是城市规划委员会(MPC)受命进行的工作。这些例子凸显了规划框架中出现的权力斗争，以及在形成集体共识时精英主义的盛行；但从某种意义上说，尽管受到一定限制，但这本身就是一种参与方式。

在大多数情况下，公众会议也会将城市中不同公民群体之间存在的发展愿景冲突摆到最前线。例如，在班加罗尔，居住在市中心的居民更喜欢限制城市的发展，而生活在城市边缘的农民则喜欢城市的进一步扩张。

在旧德里，由于日益拥挤，RWAs希望限制进一步商业化，而市场交易商协会则希望改善基础设施，以加速商业增长。这些实例旨在突出城市规划者在帮助实现集体受益的愿景时所面临的支离破碎和缺乏妥协的情况。

作为回应，如今城市规划师的角色已经从仅仅准备技术上可靠的文件，演变为必须以包容性的方法帮助解决此类冲突，而不受任何政治议程的影响。因此，我们将城市规划者视为政府与公民之间的谈判者，而不仅仅是技术官僚。


城市总体规划参与的深度？

在《总体规划2041》的项目筹备过程中举行的公众参与会议的经验表明，发展当局和公民之间缺乏信任，这使得只有在城市中拥有大量股份的公民才能参与总规议题。此外，市政府在制定总体规划时可能无法与众多公民团体接触。因此，持续参与，是解决新出现的冲突、就采取的办法达成更广泛共识的关键。

此外，可以通过利用信息和通信技术 (ICT) 来吸引更广泛的公民参与规划。政府必须对数字平台投资，公民可以定期参与并共同创造解决困扰他们社区的棘手问题的方案。

在公众参与会议上，我们也注意到市民反映了日常问题（如住宅垃圾收集不规范或所在地区缺乏路边停车位等），然而，目前的总体规划可能无法直接解决这些问题。为了解决这一缺陷，必须促进地方形式的分散治理，并进一步使规划过程民主化。


为什么地方治理很重要？

像德里这样的大城市，仍然需要与各种各样的权力机构和利益相关者打交道，他们代表着州和联邦利益的利益。根据第74条宪法修正案的规定，需要成立一个委员会，负责大都市规模的发展规划，而在分区一级成立的委员会将编制一份地方规划。

诸如1998年印度城市发展部长的通知，免除德里受第74条修正案的约束，并保留与印度内政部一起规划和发展的权力，这进一步剥夺了当地参与者参与民主进程的合法性。

在2019新型冠状病毒(COVID-19)传播期间，“地方”的重要性尤其凸显出来。个体企业把机动人力车和出租车变成了救护车，自行车被用来运送氧气瓶，家庭被变成了医院病房，RWAs和公寓协会联合起来，通过供应膳食等方式帮助社区内的灾民。达拉维应对不断增多的病例的故事，展示了社区自律机制在加强地方当局解决问题能力方面功效的有力助益。

Have Master Plans really worked in guiding planned growth in our cities?
Technical experts and researchers find most master plans lacking, due to their inability to control urban sprawl through systematic enforcement of development controls, or to sufficiently validate the informal nature of work and housing in cities. Cities are dynamic entities and planning tools have not kept pace with our rapidly evolving urban systems.
Another fundamental reason for the failure of master planning in India has been the lack of people’s participation in the plan making process itself. Whatever little public participation has taken place has been largely tokenistic in nature. However, there is an acknowledgement of this gap by planners and city managers and serious efforts are being taken to make city planning more inclusive.
A number of public consultation meetings were held during the preparation process of MPD 2041, engaging a wide range of stakeholders which included RWAs, Market Trader Associations, Real Estate Groups, Subject Experts, Professional Bodies, Youth, Persons with Disability. These consultations helped DDA understand the existing local level issues as well as collect over 5000 vision statements from various stakeholders which was a key input to MPD 2041.

Does a common citizen’s vision get reflected in the master plan?
From its inception, master plans have been primarily concerned with land and its utilisation. This has historically led city master plans to focus on the aspirations of minority landowners / real estate groups, rather than the needs of the majority of its migrant populations, who have ill-defined stakes in the city. From this has emerged clear gaps between the visions of development authorities, consultants, various city stakeholders, citizen groups and academia. This rich diversity of visions for the city have often led to various ideological conflicts and contests.

What are some examples of conflicts that arise in trying to arrive at a collective vision?
In Mumbai, when Aarey Colony i.e. the green lungs of the city, was being marked for development, environmental activists, community leaders and citizens took to the streets in protest, whereas real estate lobbies favoured this move.
In Bangalore, the very authority of the BDA to plan for the city was questioned as civic activists argued that it was the mandate of the Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) to do so, as per the 74th constitutional amendment. These examples highlight the emerging power struggles within the planning framework and the prevalence of elite capture when developing a collective vision; that, in a sense, is a form of participation itself, although in a limited way.
Most times public meetings also bring to the forefront the existing conflicts in visions for development among different citizen groups in the city. For example, in Bangalore, residents of the city centre prefer limiting the growth of the city while the farmers living in the urban periphery prefer the city to expand further.
In Old Delhi, while RWAs wish to restrict further commercialisation due to rising congestion, Market Trader Associations desire improvements in infrastructure to accelerate commercial growth. These instances seek to highlight the fragmentation and lack of compromise city planners face in helping achieve a collectively beneficial vision.
In response, the role of a city planner today has evolved from one in which he merely prepares technically sound documents, to one where he must help resolve such conflicts with inclusive approaches, independent of any political agenda. Thus we see city planners as negotiators between the government and citizenry rather than just technocrats.

How much participation is enough participation in city planning?
Experience from public participation meetings held during the preparation process of MPD 2041 yields that there exists a lack of trust between development authorities and citizens, which has limited participation to citizens who only have large stakes in the city. Also, it may not be possible for city governments to engage with a multitude of citizen groups while preparing a master plan. Thus continuous participation is the key to resolving emerging conflicts and achieving larger consensus towards adopted approaches.
This can be achieved by leveraging Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to garner wider citizen participation in planning. It is imperative for governments to invest in digital platforms, where citizens can regularly engage and co-create solutions to wicked problems that plague their neighbourhoods.
During public participation meetings, we also noticed that citizens echoed everyday problems (like irregularity of residential garbage collection or lack of on-street parking within their area), which the Master Plan in its current form may not be able to resolve directly. In order to address this lacuna, it is imperative that local forms of decentralised governance is promoted and we further democratise the process of planning.

Why is local governance important?
Big cities like Delhi continue to deal with a plethora of authorities and stakeholders working at various levels, representing both state and federal interests. As per mandates of the 74th constitutional amendment, a committee needs to be formed that would be responsible for development planning at the metropolitan scale while formation of committees at the ward level would prepare a local area plan.
Actions like the 1998 notification by the Union Minister for Urban Development, exempting Delhi from the 74th Amendment and retaining the power to plan and develop with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, further delegitimize the involvement of local actors in what should ideally be a democratic process.
The importance of the ‘local’ has especially come to the forefront during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. People’s personal enterprise has turned auto rickshaws and taxis into ambulances, bikes have been used to transport oxygen cylinders, homes have turned into hospital wards, RWAs and Apartments Associations have come together to help those affected within their neighbourhood through the supply of meals etc. Stories from Dharavi’s response to rising cases showcase a shining example of the efficacy of community self-regulatory mechanisms in strengthening the local authority’s ability to tackle issues.


RWA 和公寓协会在许多城市聚集在一起，以帮助在 COVID 期间受到影响的社区 / RWAs and Apartments Associations came together in many cities to help those affected within their neighbourhood during COVID. Pic: Mahesh V

能否将地方规划制度化，从而解决我们复杂的城市问题？

尽管自15年前《总体规划2021》中就提到过地方规划，围绕地方规划的争论也一直存在，但就其正规化而言，地方规划的效力有限。实现这一目标的一种方法是修订《德里市政法案》，赋予选区及其选举代表更大的权力来编制地方规划。

地方规划可以解决诸如创建开放/公共空间、提供社会基础设施、管理固体废料、在地方层面采用可持续基础设施服务（废水再利用/采用可再生能源等）的问题。

地方规划的成效将取决于:

● 谁在筹备该规划?(是否选出代表)
● 该规划的目标是什么?它如何与城市总体规划的更大愿景相吻合?
● 在筹备过程中有哪些参与者——这个过程的包容性有多大?
● 足够的技术知识
● 为执行该计划的项目等而分配的预算

否则，当前形式的地方规划很容易被精英占领，并且很容易失败。这是对德里市民的号召，让他们积极参与城市规划，创造出可以表达自己意见和影响城市发展的领域。

Can local area plans be institutionalised, and thereby address our complex urban issues?
While debates around local area plans have been happening since its mention in the MPD 2021 close to 15 years ago, there has been limited on-ground traction in terms of its formalisation. One way of achieving this could be through the amendment of the Delhi Municipality Act, giving greater powers to wards and its elected representatives to prepare Local Area Plans.
Local Area Plans can address creation of open/public space, provisioning of social infrastructure, management of solid waste, adoption of sustainable infrastructure services at the local level (waste water reuse/ renewable energy adoption etc).

The effectiveness of local area plans will depend on:
● Who is preparing the plan? (elected representatives or not)
● What is the objective of the plan and how does it dovetail with the larger vision of the City Master Plan?
● Who are the actors involved in the process of its preparation- how inclusive is the process?
● Sufficiency of technical know-how
● Allocation of a budget attached towards the implementation of the plan’s projects etc.

If not, local area planning in its current form is vulnerable to elite capture and can easily fail. This is a call to citizens of Delhi, to engage actively in the planning of the city and create domains where one can voice your opinions and influence the city’s development.