Cities host a plethora of people from different "categories" - from different economic & social classes, genders, physical abilities, social mindsets and (to an extent) nationalities. The city does not, in a true sense, host a common "public" as each member or at least each people-group varies vastly from the other. Needs of the public then become, not a standard, but diverse and non-intersecting to a significant extent. For example, what a young middle-class woman working in an IT park wants from a local train station in a city is quite different from what a middle-aged daily wage laborer wants from it. For example, the woman may primarily want personal safety whereas the man may want an affordable price for the ticket and decent public toilets. Also, what this particular woman desires from the place might be air-conditioning whereas what the man desires might be comfortable seating. So, how do decisions for public space get made? Whose needs must be fulfilled and to what extent do desires need to be fulfilled?
Apart from bringing a diverse set of needs, diversity brings in social tension. If human history and all its wars are considered to be any indicator of human behavior, one thing is almost certain - peaceful co-existence among different people, is a myth. While people do not always go to war with one another in cities, there is a limited tolerance (in varying degrees) towards people belonging to other categories. This doesn't always indicate social intolerance or discriminatory mindsets, the limited tolerance or undesirability to socialize might be fueled by previous experiences that have threatened the user's safety, recent news about horrific instances or even a hostile environment. How do we, as designers, understand this behavior and cater to it? How does a designer ensure that everyone feels safe and included in a space?
Space is the stage where human behavior occurs, the canvas that acts as the medium for events to occur. It can therefore, to a large extent, catalyze or inhibit different kinds of human behavior and movement. This makes the design of a "public" space pivotal in the society. Also, order to design a "public" space, the designer of the space needs to define (often based on the public or city administration's opinion) what human behavior and movement is "desirable" and "undesirable" in it. "Public" spaces, thus, can never truly be politically "objective" or "neutral" spaces - they represent the society's (or its administration's) vision of an "ideal society". When improperly designed (or not designed) these spaces still allow and inhibit behavior and movement and end up shaping social behavior in & around them. Thus, failure or negligence in design might actually create "non-ambient" spaces or "undesirable" behavior.
Due to social tensions and diversity, it becomes near impossible for the architect/urban designer to cater to every "desire" of the people. This makes complete radical inclusivity a myth. However, when basic needs of different user groups get ignored, the users begin being excluded or repelled from the designed (or un-designed) spaces.
In design, radical inclusivity becomes the utopian ideal or goal, the horizon, the designer drives towards, hoping to get close. Rather than chasing a unicorn, perhaps, designers can adopt a reverse approach - one of identifying the oppression that currently lies in the society, to understand who is excluded from space and why! To create an "ideal" society, understanding the one that exists now becomes crucial - inclusion cannot be created without understanding exclusion. Perhaps, a more down-to-earth approach to creating an "inclusive" public space is to understand what the society is being denied and must have, in order to be the one it aspires to be.
Thus, the onus lies with the designer to begin to break-down aspirations, desires and needs of the "public" to create spaces that might not be, in the true sense, radically inclusive, but ones that aspire to break down social oppression, discrimination and act as beacons of hope, for the society to be.
