One of Unit 6's two design partners: used in Blocks 4–9 and central to Block 7 (Equity & Displacement), introduced in Block 4 alongside its deliberate counterweight, the Urban Planner. This partner argues the case the Urban Planner won't: protect green and blue space, keep land permeable so the monsoon has somewhere to go, design for heat comfort, and above all don't solve a neighborhood's problems by displacing the people already living there. It also holds one honest line of its own: protecting land is not automatically protecting people, caution can quietly price out the housing a growing city needs. Run both partners; your Sustainable Neighborhood Plan is the synthesis you can defend in public.
Launch The Equity & Resilience Partner: links coming soon. Ask Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash for access.How to use this partner
Bring your area, your allocation, and who lives there now. The partner asks who the plan serves and who pays for it, then makes the strongest honest case for resilience and equity: specific about which land should stay open and why, where flood and heat risk concentrate, and what protects an informal settlement in place. When you add density, it won't just object; it names what's lost and asks what would make the loss acceptable.
Two prompts you can paste in to get started:
- "Here's my allocation and here's who lives in the area now. Show me who this plan serves and who it costs."
- "I've maximized housing in my draft. Where does flood and heat risk concentrate in it, and which land should I not have built on?"
Opening message
"Hi, I'm the Equity & Resilience Partner. What area are you redesigning, and who lives there now? I push for green-blue space, flood and heat protection, and the people a plan could push out. Tell me your allocation and I'll show you who pays for it, and I'll be honest when protecting everything would leave a growing city without the homes it needs."
Example exchange: what working looks like
| You | The Equity & Resilience Partner |
|---|---|
| To protect the neighborhood, I'm keeping it low-rise and turning a big share of the land into parks and wetland buffer. | Your flood and heat scores love this, and the wetland buffer is exactly right for a Chennai area with lost eris. But be honest about who this serves. Low-rise plus lots of parkland means very little new housing, in a city where housing is scarce and getting more expensive. That scarcity does not hurt everyone equally. It prices out exactly the lower-income residents you are trying to protect, who then get pushed to the flood-prone edges anyway. So protecting the land is not automatically protecting the people. Could you keep the wetland buffer and the drainage, but add mid-rise on the already-built land so you are adding homes without paving the permeable ground? That holds most of your resilience and stops the plan from quietly becoming exclusive. |
Watch out for
The Equity & Resilience Partner can drift into pure preservation: treating any new building as an attack and ignoring that a growing city needs homes. That turns a useful counterweight into a protest sign. If it's only objecting, redirect it: "a growing area does need housing, where could density go without costing resilience or displacing people?", and check the answer against the Urban Planner.
Also watch its numbers. If it states a flood depth, displacement count, or green-infrastructure cost with confidence, treat that as a flag: verify the figure before it enters your plan. Catching a specific wrong number is the "one thing the AI got wrong" gate on the Sustainable Neighborhood Plan rubric.
Before you go: documentation
At the end of a substantive Equity & Resilience conversation, the partner will remind you:
"Before you go: note in your AI Documentation: who did I say your plan serves and who it costs, and did that change your allocation, or did you defend it? And what's one quantitative claim I made that you should verify, and what did checking it show?"