A universal city is marked by its inclusivity, i.e. a city that manages to include the participation of all individuals that contribute towards the city. This inclusion involves incorporating features that ensure inclusivity for all through establishing the frameworks of universal design (NYU, 2017) that can include architectural features, facilitation services, etc that aim to streamline the usufructuary experience in a universal city by offering design principles for formulating the layouts for a city.
Universal Design
Universal design in city planning can be utilized to provide accessibility and inclusion in cities for example to differently-abled people. Universal design involves the design of an environment such that its composition can be accessed and used to the greatest extent possible by beneficiaries. In this, spaces are designed such that minimum adaptive responses are required for their navigation. This involves creating systems having facilities and services that can be used by all beneficiaries targeted.
Ronald Mace of North Carolina State University introduced the seven principles that should govern universal design in 1997. He developed these principles in consort with a working group of professionals including researchers involved in environmental design, engineers, architects and product design specialists. These principles are act as a guide to generating models of universal design. The seven universal design principles are as under –
The first principle is Equitable Use, whereby the design functions fairly towards a diverse array of needs. Mace provides certain guidelines (i) provision of the same means of use to users, either identical or if not, equivalent, (ii) no stigmatization of segregation of users, (iii) provision of secure use, (iv) a design architecture that appeals to all users.
The second principle is Flexible Use, whereby a range of individual preferences and needs are addressed by the universal design. The guidelines include (i) usage methods should offer choice, (ii) left-handed usage should be accommodated in addition to right-handed use, (iii) facilitate the diverse range of skills of the users, (iv) a design system attuned to the user’s method of usage.
The third principle is the Simplicity of Use, whereby the design system is easily understandable and user-friendly. This involves (i) less complexity, (ii) consistency with the skill levels and expectations of users, (iii) provision of information appropriately, (iv) a streamlined interface for tasks.
The fourth principle is Perceptible Information, which implies the communicative capabilities of universal design. The guidelines for such are (i) effective methods of presentation, (ii) mark essential information as such and make it understandable, (iii) provisions for people with receptive limitations.
The fifth principle is Minimization of Errors, wherein errors are limited in the formulation of universal design. The involves (i) proper arrangement of elements such that risk is minimized, (ii) provision of warnings for hazards, (iii) features that are tested for fail-safe measures, (iv) discourage degenerative usage.
The sixth principle is Low Physical Effort, implying comfortable and efficient usage of universal design products and services with minimal physical effort.
The seventh principle is adequate Size and Space for Approach and Use, which as its title suggests, implies optimization the size of and space occupied by the universal design product in relation to how it can be approached and its usage (NDA Ireland, 2014). The guidelines for this principle are dependent on the nature of the product or service in question.
Universal Design in India
According to the National Centre for Accessible Environments (Samarthyam), India, thought on universal design for the universal city in India is based on the model based on Mace’s formula in 1997 (Samarthyam, 2016). The National Institute of Design (NID), India identifies universal design with sustainability, adding that these designs should serve as value propositions (NID, 2015).
The goal in India is achieving sustainable solutions that at the same time generate value at the installed locations. The practice for this is not as expansive and the focus is largely on design solutions in urban spaces for senior citizens, differently-abled people and people who suffer from reduced mobility. Installations such as ramps in public buildings are a prime example of how universal design solutions are being implemented in India, although Indian cities are yet distant from coming under the category of a universal city.
An example of where universal design can be applied in Indian cities is the layout on Indian roads, whose footpaths are littered with vendors, parked vehicles, electric poles, etc such that many a time pedestrians might prefer to walk on the road instead.
In a universal city, such experiences such as walking on footpaths should be more streamlined. Niels Schoenfelder, MD of Mancini Design told M.S. Preetha of the Hindu that education on universal design is required to have a universal city.
He added that such education can motivate people to train themselves in providing better design solutions to build a universal city (The Hindu, 2015). There is a lack of awareness in India on the notion of accessibility and inclusivity in building a universal city.
The focus in the promotion of universal design principles in India is on strongly connecting with the psyche of Indian people along with their customization to Indian conditions. Although Mace’s principles are maintained, Indian principles are also added for the purpose of customization to Indian conditions.
Equitability for example comes under new directions in the Indian context, implying non-discriminatory usage for diverse users. The principle for Usability or ‘Sahaj’ is added which is a critical principle for customization to the Indian context. Another unique principle is the Cultural principle that aims to build design systems conjoined to the notion of India’s heritage and civilization.
Also introduced is the Economic principle that aims at providing mainly affordable solutions to urban navigation in India. An emphasis is also placed on the Aesthetic principle that looks to achieve social integration and could determine the acceptability of universal design solutions in the Indian context.
In sociological literature, human communities are said to be based on the interaction of four factors, namely the natural resources in the habitat, material and non-material culture, and population. These interactions are arranged by competition and consensus, where consensus implies interdependence.
While competition in cities is driven by a race for scarce resources, the cultural superstructure is driven by consensus and communication. This cultural superstructure is composed of adaptive responses to the organization of the city and involves certain learned techniques for individuals to navigate their way around cities.
Optimizing on inclusivity as a principle for co-operation with the implementation of universal design principles would greatly improve the experience of liveability in a universal city. They also assist in dissolving some of the alienation felt by many individuals in cities and instead offer an institutional solution to co-operation in cities.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.