There is a conflict and there always will be with design process when it comes to devolving cities. It is a huge area where almost everything relevant to living, with basic needs and sources have to be taken into consideration. In my opinion if a problem or an event is initiated without giving much thought about the positive and the negative aspects of it, too many things could go wrong in the process of finishing it. “Growth, prosperity, happiness are after all ( prevails as) goods from the mainstream perspective” people’s standard of living has increased considerably or their expectations from life have. Everyone, regardless of their income, wants the best of all things. We often associate intuition with irrationality because when a decision is taken with intubation, the decision is often impulsive. As there is no thought pit into it. We don’t analyse the situation as we might have. Personally I feel if it does not work in theory it would be almost impossible to prove it or make it work practically. When an entity is designed every relation connecting to it should be put into thought. Because as the entity grows, it will grow as a whole and not as a single unit. It may take one unit time to catch up to the other faster growing unit but eventually the whole entity grows as a whole. We should look at the city as a whole and not as parts. Every part of the city plays a vital role in keeping the society running. Example : if a small squatter forms (comes into existence) near an area,which was deserted before. The squatter directly related to the surrounding environment, physically and socially. There is a reason to the squatter to be formed in the particular area. If hypothetically if a small squatter is formed near a well devolved residential block. It would imbalance the social system of the area. But it also works out In a positive way. The people living in the squatter work for the people living in the residential block, as the people in the squatter require work for running their homes. This connects the squatter and the residential block. In a way it works out both ways. In a positive and a negative way, but the question here would be ‘is the positive side of the association worth in accordance to the negative part of it ?’ When it comes to developers, people will think of profit as it is relevant to the people in account. I would like to give an example of my city, Ahmedabad in India. My city has different areas, that’s how it’s been developed through years. It has mixed developments too, and it has an industrial area. The industrial area is further away form the city center. If I look back 2 years, the area around the industries was completely deserted, there was nothing but factories and mills. Since 2 years as the industries starting increasing the developers have started building townships and housing projects around these areas. These projects are still away from the main city, but as new factories come up or the old ones expand they require more man power. So the developers came up with housing schemes. Some people would think that this was just a profit making idea. The people working in the factories shift to the hoses near to their work. Which means that the area develops making it safer. The people working in the factories gave to spend less time for their transit, which they can either spend working extra hours or in any other recreational activity. This relation grows, which will result in more developments in these kind of relations, stretching the city limits and proving the system to be ver practical.