The interests of working and poor people have historically been neglected in the planning of our cities. Our cities are increasingly intolerant, unsafe and unlivable places for large numbers of citizens and yet we continue to plan via the old ways — the static Development Plan — that draws exclusively from technical expertise, distanced from people’s live experiences and needs, and actively excluding large number of people, places, activities and practices that are an integral part of the city.

Question: The passage seems to argue

The correct answer is in favour of participation of peoples’ groups in city planning.

Step-by-step Explanation:

1. Analyze the passage's critique of current planning: The text states that cities are planned using "old ways — the static Development Plan". This traditional approach relies "exclusively from technical expertise" which is "distanced from people’s live experiences and needs". As a result, it "actively exclud[es] large number of people, places, activities and practices that are an integral part of the city."

2. Identify the core problem: The primary issue highlighted is the exclusion of the city's residents (especially working and poor people) and their lived experiences from the planning process due to an over-reliance on distant technical experts.

3. Determine the logical counter-argument/solution: Since the passage criticizes city planning for excluding the people and being distanced from their lived experiences, the logical argument it supports is the reverse: inclusion and participation of these diverse groups in the planning process.

4. Evaluate the options: The option "in favour of participation of peoples’ groups in city planning" directly addresses the critique of exclusion by advocating for the active involvement of the citizens and their representative groups to ensure their live experiences and needs are no longer neglected.