Conclusion
Open spaces are of different categories, specific for different functions. Spatial characters of an open space are by far less rigid because of their ‘open’ nature, thereby allowing a greater spectrum of users and activities to occur in the space. They are important as breathing spaces as well as places of democratic expression. In this study, the authors observed that inclusion and exclusion are concepts not black and white, but grey. Different user groups have different desires and expectations, and this diversity sometimes leads to a conflict of interests. People constantly carve out spaces for themselves and exclude it for others. The excluded in this case are the differently abled, senior citizens, children and women. Their dearth in our gate count is an evidence of this exclusion. Those who bear power over a situation governing a space (and hence the space itself ), such as the truck drivers and car owners, as observed by the authors, have successfully taken over open spaces for their usage. Those without this power, such as children and the elderly, have suffered. Governments practicing exclusion tend to warp the notion of equity and rightful assemblage, rights that are intrinsic in democratic societies. Realizing that the notion of acceptance is a utopian proposition, the authors’ solution to achieve inclusion is to strive for curated inclusivity, wherein inclusion is achieved in pockets and layers so that everyone gets a space to plug in when and where they feel fit. It could be temporal, like the different uses of Ramleela Maidaan by different groups, or Central Park, which selectively includes different groups in different situations. It could be spatial where the same united space offers activities in different zones that interest different groups. It could be something new altogether, but one which gives an opportunity for everyone to access it, irrespective of their identity. The UN defines a public space as “an area or place that is open and accessible to all peoples, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socioeconomic level”. However, in light of the authors’ findings, this definition needs a relook.
Bibliography Douglas. R., 2013. What do we mean by Inclusive Cities. Available at:http://nextcity.org/informalcity/entry/commentary-what-we-mean-byinclusive-cities [Accessed 18 September 2014]. Thompson. C. W., 2007. The Nature of Exclusion. In: Open Space: People Space. New York: Taylor and Francis. Srivathsan. A., 2013. Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/where-is-our-patch-of-green-mr-mayor/article3223739.ece [Accessed 26 November 2014] Kohn. M., 2004. Brave New Neighbourhoods: The Privatization of Public Spaces Hillier. B., 2007. Spatial Sustainability. London, University College London. Puri. Z., 2012. Spatial Critique of Hauz Khas Village, Gurgaon: Unpublished. Urbanism, C. f. I., 2010. A World of Inclusive Cities. [Online] Available at: http://www.inclusiveurbanism.org/ [Accessed 18 September 2014]. UNESCO, IInclusion Through Access to Public Space, Available at http://www.unesco.org/ new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/urbandevelopment/migrants-inclusion-in-cities/good-practices/inclusion-through-access-to-public-space/ Social Value of Public Spaces [Online] Available at:www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2050-public-space-community.pdf [Accessed 18 September 2014]. Inclusive Design for Going Outdoors [Online] Available at: http://www.idgo.ac.uk/[Accessed 18 September 2014]. Adams. P., 1997. The Retreat from Tolerance, Sydney: ABC Books.
88