The first day began with the Urban Design Thesis presentation from all six institutes. The nature of projects varied as far as context concerned but the quality of inquiry remained fairly uniform throughout. The nature of intervention always remained suspended or left ambiguous. The discussion resulted into larger domain of Urban Design i: e values of design in urban to policy formation. The various components argued out but to my mind they may remain unarticulated or unattended from design point of view.
Equal rights as liability
How much incremental
Frontiers of Urban Design
Discipline of Design in Urban Design
Agency of Urban Design
Analysis as system that impedes the expansion of Urban Design frontiers
Statistic and Policy are like holding dog’s tail & allowing him to bark.
Development finance as an attributes
Generic principles of Urban Design
Land contour vs. natural contour.
Morphing phenomenon of public to everyday
Structural device vs. empirical device.
Command principle of planning
Both the thesis of KRVIA students evoked some sense of reaction due to its very nature of being Mumbai context specific, which would refuse to fit into pre-conceived notion. Atul thesis has been direct conflict with the MHADA rules vs. Production type. He challenged the policy structure and entered into design phase with phenomenon as Urban Design Principle. Although it appeared to be traditional ones but has direct impact on what we really see vast changing reality.
Mayuresh thesis attempts to articulate that urbanization of surplus is imperative reality. In such circumstances the first victims are natural resources & natural system in our context. The very often the natural system as an asset becomes the backyard of the city. The issues of built vs. natural system creates discord or disconnect. The design intervention demonstrates the method to make the asset as face of the city.
The second day began with the presentation of an individual institute with their experiments with the elective course:
KRVIA master’s hinges on idea of city of Mumbai as a laboratory, enumerating or delineating its own complexity and paradigmatic paradox. City transform much faster than pace of academia comprehension and conceptualization. The argument that we posed was articulated as:
What is theory?
What to theorize?
Is it theorizing assets & value system?
Is it theorizing outcome of surplus & exploitation.
It brings the fundamental question of construct of knowledge or structure of knowledge. The epistemological structure is an imperative condition to construct what need to be theorize?.