This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
May 2009 Master of Science in Building and Urban Design in Development (2008 – 2009) Development Planning Unit University College London
Members of Faculty
Dr. Camillo Boano Isis P Nuñez Ferrera
Mike Wai-Hou Chan Laura Colloridi Debeshi Chakraborty Barbara Dovarch Melissa Garcia Lamarca William Hunter Su-Eun Jung Benjamin Leclair-Paquet Xiaolu Li Phirany Lim Gynna Millan Franco Kelvin Naidoo Hye-Joo Park Nota Syrrothanasi Pooja Varma Andrew Wade Hong Kong Italy India Italy Canada United States of America South Korea Canada China United States of America Colombia South Africa Korea Greece India United States of America
Participants Table of Contents Image index Acronyms Acknowledgements Executive summary
01 Chapter Introduction
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Locating Mumbai: A World Class City? Dharavi: The Heart of Contested Urbanism Terms of Reference Theoretical Framework Vision
04 Chapter Current Reality in Dharavi: Analysis and Emerging Issues
02 Chapter Methodology
2.1 The Process 2.2 Asumptions and Limitations
4.1 Context, Scope and Framework for Analysis 4.2 Experienced Impact on Livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira 4.3 Urban Analysis of Chambra Baazar 4.4 Anticipated Impact of In-Situ Redevelopment in Chambra Baazar 4.5 Summary of Analysis and Finding: Moving into the Scenarios
03 Chapter Towards the Dharavi Redevelopment Project?
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Policy Comparisons and Critique Physical Proposals and Critiques Contested Visions of the DRP Conclusions
05 Chapter Bridging the Gap : Rationale for the Scenarios
06 Chapter The Scenarios
6.1 Scenario 1: Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Plan 6.2 Scenario 2: BUDD Proposal: Towards an Alternative Vision
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 map of Greater Mumbai map of Dharavi photo of DRP proposal sketch from Mumbai Mirror images of negotiating the change from hutment dweller to tenement dweller diagram of actor pressures (adapted from Pieterse 2003)
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 figure of evolution of government approach to slums photo of present Mumbai by Chirodeep Chaudhuri photo of present Mumbai by Chirodeep Chaudhuri images of DRP transformation in Dharavi map of the 5 sectors by Mehta image of DRP proposed podium typology from Mumbai Mirror diagram of transformation process of Indian cities towards a world class city
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12a 4.12b 4.12c 4.13 4.14 4.15a 4.15b 4.16 4.17a 4.17b 4.18a example analysis diagram- issue criteria vs core analytical concepts Map showing Rajiv Indira location within Dharavi area Map showing Bharat Janata location within Dharavi area Images showing commercial activity scenes with current plan location and corresponding analytical Images showing larger-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram. Images showing small-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram. Images showing the physical layout of interaction space in the previous and the current situation and correImages showing the quality of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) and corresponding an-
sponding analytical diagram alytical diagram Images showing the use of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) with current plan l o c a t i o n Images showing the use of communal space around the building (Rajiv Indira) with current plan location and corresponding analytical diagram and corresponding analytical diagram Interview photos (with the community leader of Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram map showing Dharavi development in 1933 map showing Dharavi development in 1969 map showing Dharavi development in 2008 major road linkages throughout Dharavi land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar photos showing use of open space sketch illustrating activities around shared open space diagram showing production chain at various geographical scales photos showing various scales of commercial enterprise analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (enterprise activity) photo showing live/work space (migrant workers) surrounding the question of participation in design
4.18b 4.19a 4.20a 4.20b 4.21a 4.21b
analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (live/work tenements) photos of home-based activities (and their location) within Chambda Bazaar (map) interview photos- different scale home-based commercial activities analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (home-based work) photos showing diversity of open space- commercial/residential analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (diverse spatial use)
5.1 diagram of setting the scenario
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 Diagram showing the varying degrees of participation Image illustrating the exclusionary nature of the DRP Image illustrating means of design communication Diagram showing mulit-actor participation Image showing the proposed monolithic typology of the DRP Photographs of livelihood profile in Rajiv Indira, Unit 005 Photographs of livelihood profile in Rajiv Indira, Unit 115 Photographs of livelihood profile in Rajiv Indira, Unit 415 Diagram showing possibility for expansion under the DRP Diagram of options to purchase additional space Diagram of enabling spatial proposals Conceptual proposals map Table of Development Strategy Schema Diagram illustrating process of community involvement Poster of layout options Urban density map Photograph of current situation (home-based units) Diagram of proposed space-use arrangement Place-Policy Matrix (home-based units) Illustration of migrants’ use of space Illustration of production networks Diagram showing the separation of spatial uses Place-Policy Matrix (work-based units) Diagram of current situation Diagram of proposed arrangement (rehabilitation high-rise) Place-Policy Matrix (rehabilitation high-rise) Photographs of current situation (Bandra-Kurla Complex) Diagram of proposed arrangement (private sector high-rise) Place-Policy Matrix (private sector high-rise)
Community-Led Infrastructure Financing Facility Dharavi Redevelopment Project Expoert Advisory Committee Floor Space Index Government of Maharashtra Housing Development & Infrastructure Limited Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Mumbai Municipal Corporation Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority National Slum Dwellers Federation Slum Rehabilitation Authority Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres Transferable Development Rights
CLIFF DRP EAC FSI GoM HDIL KRVIA MCGM MHADA MMC MMRDA NSDF SRA SPARC TDR
We would like to thank many people that have contributed and given invaluable support to this work. First and foremost, we would like to thank the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC) and the Kamala Raheja Vidhyanidhi Institute of Architecture (KRVIA) for their constant guidance and hospitality during our stay in Mumbai. The following people have been particularly supportive of this work: Mrs. Sheela Patel, Director of SPARC; Mr. Sundar Burra, Advisor to SPARC; Aseena Viccajee, Systems Manager of SPARC and SSNS; Mr. Anirudh Paul, Director of KRVIA and Ms. Benita Menezes of KRVIA. Furthermore, we would like to thank several people who contributed to this work through their presentations and the meetings we had with them: Mr. A. Jockin, President of National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF); Mr. Gautam Chatterjee, Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of MHADA, and Officer on Special Duty for the Dharavi Redevelopment Project; Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, Project Director (MUTP) and Metropolitan Commissioner of MMRDA; Mr. U.P.S. Madan, Project Manager of the Mumbai Transformation Support Unit; Mr. S.K. Joshi Advisor to SPARC; Ms. Kalpana Sharma, author and journalist; Ms. Neera Adarkar, architect and activist and P.K. Das, architect and activist.
Many thanks go to the women of Mahila Milan, especially Prema, our facilitators from SPARC, namely Lopez ,Lopez, Sharmila and Katia, and our KRVIA contacts, specifically Neelima, Rutwick, Amruyta and Siddhartha, as well as Rochit, who all went to great lengths to facilitate our fieldwork. Your help in navigating Dharavi was invaluable. Additionally we would like to thank all our tutors at the Development Planning Unit, University College London, for their guidance throughout this academic year, with special reference to Dr. Camillo Boano, Director of the MSc in Building and Urban Design in Development course, for his constant encouragement, support and guidance. We would also like to thank the BUDD Course Coordinator Isis P Nunez Ferrera for her fruitful discussions, suggestions and constructive critiques. Finally, we would like to express our deep gratitude to the people of Dharavi, who were always eager to open their houses and shops, sharing with us their aspirations and demonstrating the strength of their community.
Presentation This report was produced by the students of the MSc Building and Urban Design in Development (BUDD) course at the Development Planning Unit (DPU) of The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment at University College London (UCL). It is the product of an extensive six-week programme that included three weeks of fieldwork and interviews with major stakeholders and actors, alongside lectures and a comprehensive literature review. The purpose of the study was to understand the complex and often conflicting interrelationship between livelihoods, policy and space in Dharavi, Mumbai. The specific sites of study were two buildings of rehabilitated ‘slum dwellers’ – Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira – and Chambda Baazar, an area characterised by minimal high-rise development and significant commercial and home-based economic activity. After an introduction to the contexts of Mumbai and Dharavi, the report outlines the policy context and the current masterplan being pursued by the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP). Based on fieldwork and analysis, findings are then presented in regards to the experienced impact on livelihoods on rehabilitated ‘slum dwellers’ in moving from hutments to buildings in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira, and the anticipated impact of such urban transformation in Chambda Bazaar. Two Scenarios are then presented, the first of which proposes adjustments within the parameters of the current DRP, and the second which proposes an alternative redevelopment strategy.
Key Findings The Dharavi Redevelopment Project In order to satisfy Mumbai’s intent to become a ‘World Class City’, the municipal government has established objectives that are to be met through a series of major urban infrastructure and redevelopment projects, hand in hand with a drive towards the vision of a ‘slum free’ city. Through a state facilitated PublicPrivate Partnership (PPP), the architect Mukesh Mehta and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) have developed the DRP, which is in essence a tabula-rasa redevelopment strategy for the entire territory of Dharavi. Its key characteristics are: • • Dividing Dharavi into five sectors, to be Increasing density by setting a Floor redeveloped by five developers; Space Index (FSI) of four as a regulatory tool, as compared to two and a half in the rest of Mumbai; • Adopting a new singular typology solution consisting of a three-storey podium with highrise building above. • Financing through cross subsidisation and commodification of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in a Public-Private Partnership. • Allocating 300 square foot flats at no cost for all residents currently living in Dharavi and listed in the census of 1 January, 2000.
002 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Analysis of experienced and anticipated impact on livelihoods Findings that emerged from the analysis of field observations and numerous semi-structured interviews clearly illustrate that the people of Dharavi should not be perceived as a homogenous group, but rather an extremely diverse conglomeration of sub-groups. A few highlighted key findings, as filtered through the analytical concepts of policy, livelihoods and space and the four criteria forming the theoretical framework - namely diversity, adaptability, flexibility and multiplicity, show: Experienced impacts in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira • The current Slum Rehabilitation Act (SRA) creates a trade off for owners of both commercial units and residential space located in the same structure to choose between one or the other, thus failing to recognise the multiplicity of use in existing building structures. Policy is thus inflexible to people’s requirements and individuals’ adaptability through time. • While the majority of people in Dharavi have an exceptional ability to adapt to both new social and physical conditions, the SRA policy does not recognise the multiplicity of activities and use of space for home-based activities inside flats, nor does it recognise the flexibility of space as an issue requiring attention. • Social cohesion was found to be negatively affected in high-rise rehabilitation projects,
especially among women and children. The importance of the exterior/public environment in terms of providing space for socialising is not recognised in policy, in terms of multiplicity of functions nor necessary quality of space. • SRA policy does not consider people’s involvement in the building design process, fundamental to identify people’s multiplicity of use of space and diversity of requirements. Anticipated impacts in Chambda Bazaar • Commercial activities have thrived because of their flexibility, diversity, adaptability and multiplicity in the present informal situation, often connected to larger chains of production in India and internationally. Such characteristics are not given due recognition in policy. • Many commercial activities are dependent compensation within commercial upon migrant workers who work for free or nominal clusters; such flexible conditions of work-live spaces and the adaptations that owners have made through time to address labourers’ needs are not addressed in SRA policy. • Small-scale home-based activities often form part of a wider chain of production that connects people to the rest of Dharavi and its economic networks. SRA policy fails to understand the diversity and flexibility of space and networks that home-based commercial activities require. • Residential and commercial tenements are often very small and have a multiplicity of co-
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 003
existing uses, where many activities are extended into open spaces outside the main structures. Such multiplicity and adaptation through time is not recognised at the policy level. Urban Analysis Our fieldwork enabled a better understanding of the urban forms present in Dharavi, and of their association with different uses and social interactions. Some key findings illustrate that: • Correlation between societal organisations and living clusters was strongest in hutments formed around multi-functional open spaces, and hutments with direct access open spaces. • Nagars (neighbourhoods) organised around open spaces use this exterior domain to socialise with neighbours and to operate small-scale businesses. • Exterior spaces in organic clusters with minimal open spaces were generally used only to carry out household chores. • Units were often built incrementally,
Recommendations The findings of our study indicate a clear disconnect between the proposed plan for the redevelopment of Dharavi and the current situation of the stakeholders most affected by the process: the citizens of Dharavi. Our recommendations come in the form of two scenarios, each containing various proposals that reconcile our findings to different visions for Dharavi. The first scenario explores new ways to include key findings into the DRP, while the second proposes an alternative vision which abandons certain components of the DRP, with clear justifications for each departure, in order to be more sensitive to the current reality of the area and its citizens. These scenarios in particular were created in recognition of the diversity of stakeholders involved in the DRP process, including the recently created Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP as the prime civil society representative body, in order to offer new options and perspectives as well as to support continuous and incremental negotiations. The First Scenario highlights the need for greater transparency, citizen involvement, and the recognition of the heterogeneous nature of the residents of Dharavi. The aims of the proposals in this Scenario are to: • Suggest grassroots involvement by directly engaging with the existing civil society organisations in Dharavi; • Propose the sale of additional floor space to recipients of the provided flats.
by adding storeys to the ground level to accommodate changing needs. • Incremental building accounts for the diversity of the urban environment, and the synthesis of different storey buildings in close proximity. • Manufacturing clusters requiring greater accessibility were strategically located along primary and secondary local roads.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
This plural approach to housing provision looks to be more adaptive and enabling to people through the process of transformation, by acknowledging the existing diversity in capacity and needs within the community. It recognises the potential of existing households to participate more equitably in the process. The Second Scenario underlines the multiplicity and diversity of the citizens of Dharavi, and thus the need for a wider scale and complex urban proposal. Regarding the redevelopment strategy, the programme presented in this scenario conceptualises the need and means to: • • • each • Integrate migrants; Acknowledge the role of the different Provide a range of architectural options, adapted to specific conditions of
Conclusions The report outlines the importance of addressing the diversity of needs and aspirations within Dharavi and Mumbai at an institutional level by allocating suitable room for manoeuvre within a relevant and responsive policy framework. While criticising the DRP for not being reflectively informed, nor seemingly acknowledging the diversity present at multiple levels within Dharavi, the report seeks to demonstrate means by which such action can be taken.
morphological forms in Dharavi;
residents; Recognise the historical quarters and the emotional attachment of citizens to such spaces; • Incorporate, with greater integrity, involvement of the citizens of Dharavi in the process of transformation.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 005
006 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Locating Mumbai: a World Class City? Dharavi: the Heart of Contested Urbanism Terms of Reference Theoretical Framework Vision
This case of contested urbanism highlights land values and built densities at the core of the argument over Mumbai’s future, accentuating inequalities and driving the contest over space. The ingrained behaviour of the actors involved and their inter-relationships accentuate this conflictive nature.
1.1 Locating Mumbai: a World Class City? Mumbai is a locus of economic activity that attracts both an influx of global capital as well as migrants drawn from across the country in search of opportunity. While the former forges avenues connecting Mumbai into the global network of ‘world-class’ cities, the latter are forced to negotiate a complex spatial-political landscape where they lack adequate avenues of representation and influence. At a spatial level migrants are further challenged by the physical reality of the city: located on a peninsula (Figure 1.1), Mumbai faces acute pressure on land, resulting in over half the population of the cityresiding in informal settlements or ‘slums’ (Patel, D’Cruz and Burra, 2003: 160). The economic liberalisation of India in the early 1990s marked a shift in priorities and the beginning of Mumbai’s aspirations toward an outward looking, ambitious vision of global competition. This was manifested by the global consulting firm McKinsey & Company Inc. in 2003 as contracted by Bombay First, an elite citizen group seeking to make the city a better place to live, work and invest in and aiming to serve the city with the best that private business can offer. This vision, endorsed and presently pursued by the municipal and state government, simply stated means that “if Mumbai has to be a World Class city then the slums have to go, for which strong and urgent steps need to be taken. Any encroachment of public property cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with according to the rule of law.” (Mahadevia and Narayanan, 1999: 2) 1.2 Dharavi: the Heart of Contested Urbanism Popularly known as Asia’s largest slum, Dharavi is characterised by its strategic location in the centre of Mumbai (Figure 1.2), and thus finds itself at the heart of a challenging, highly contested debate over the future of the city and its development process. Dharavi has evolved in this context from a small fishing village, whose genesis lies in the policy of demolition and relocation the city followed for many years, where squatters were pushed off valuable land in south Mumbai and moved onto this swampy, unhygienic area (Sharma, 2000: 24). Jockin, the leader of NSDF, notes that ‘the poor are used as bulldozers to fill swamps, even out the land, make it habitable and just after this happens the city moves in and they are moved out – to another uninhabitable plot of land’ (ibid.: 19). As Mumbai’s
Figure 1.2 Dharavi
Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC) Dharavi
Dharavi Chambda Bazaar
Figure 1.1 Greater Mumbai
development pushed northwards, Dharavi became its geographical centre. Currently it is located between inner-city districts and the financial centre BandraKurla Complex, near Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport. Strong transportation connections link the periphery of Dharavi to Mumbai, helping to make Dharavi a focal area for development. This case of contested urbanism highlights land values and built densities at the core of the argument over Mumbai’s future, accentuating inequalities and driving the contest over space. The ingrained behaviour of the actors involved and their complex inter-relationships accentuate this conflictive nature. Significant government and market pressure towards becoming a world-class city and thus wiping out ‘slums’ push against the struggle for a bottom-up, inclusive development process by NGO groups such as SPARC, grassroots organisations including Mahila Milan and the NSDF and heterogeneous citizen groups in Dharavi. These latter groups are diverse in nature, and importantly in strategies and tactics, where groups
008 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
such as SPARC work in a model of critical engagement with the state, grassroots groups organise and collaborate at the local/community scale towards creating alternative people-centred development models, while citizen groups have a broad scope and are difficult to characterise in a few adjectives, although many actively resist the DRP. The Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP, the one avenue for civil society engagement in the Project, has the complex task of mediating these conflicting demands towards its goals of making the redevelopment process ‘more humane’. Dharavi thus demands a shift in perspective to recognise its diverse and conflictive nature both within its boundaries and in relation to Mumbai as a whole. There is a need for the production of policies and space to inform each other in a mutually supportive fashion through the recognition of livelihood assets. At an institutional level, it is important that the diversity of needs and aspirations within Dharavi and Mumbai be addressed by allocating suitable room for manoeuvre within a relevant and responsive policy framework. While the challenges of scaling-up development are recognised, readjusting the conceptual relationship between a hutment dweller and a tenement dweller as well as the physical translation of re-housing and its livelihood impacts should be given primary consideration in future redevelopment plans. Implementing appropriate and relevant processes within a tightly linked and responsive spatial-political landscape creates a critical path where transformative intentions can be realised and sustained. Dharavi’s treatment by various government
(Sources: BBC, 2006; Sharma, 2000; Chatterjee interview, 2009)
A Snapshot of Dharavi
- Geographic area: 239 hectares - Number of nagars (neighbourhoods): over 80 - Population size: Between 700,000 and 1 million people - Institutions: 27 temples, 11 mosques, 6 churches, 3 primary/secondary schools - Economic activity: Annual turnover of business is estimated at £350 million - 23% of the population is employed in small scale industries - 70-80% of Dharavi’s workforce also reside there
organisations such as the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and the Government of Maharashtra (GoM) will not only clearly reveal their true priorities in further developing Mumbai, but it will also map uncharted spatial-political territory, setting a precedent for future patterns of development and the treatment of the informal sector in India and beyond. There is a need to reflect upon the nature and implications of such urban change in the conflicted heart of Mumbai.
DHARAVI case of contested urbanism 009 DHARAVI a a case of contested urbanism 006
1.3 Terms of Reference The terms of reference for the work in Dharavi are as follows:
1. To conduct an urban analysis of Chambda Bazaar, aiming to explore its spatial integration in the wider context, taking into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed plans alongside assets and livelihoods 2. To explore the experienced impact on livelihoods in two in-situ development projects – Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira – coordinated by Mumbai-based NGO, SPARC, and the anticipated impact on livelihoods of the in-situ development in Chambda Bazaar. Focus is specifically on the spatial implications both for commercial structures and home-based economic activities, namely exploring the relationship between a.Livelihoods structures b.Livelihoods and design for home-based economic activities infrastructure 3. To explore with the different actors involved (household members and community groups, NGOs, and relevant government and private sector organizations) proposals which will strengthen the in-situ development in Dharavi in the future in a manner which will contribute to their transformative intentions and design for commercial
fragmented and unevenly distributed power prioritises the vision of some actors over others. Transformation is thus understood as a process that occurs as dominant and resistant forces converge within a context of cooperative conflict. This fundamentally alters the production of space and policy, thus enabling the enhancement of livelihoods through time. The concept of livelihoods is understood as people, their capacity and means of living, demonstrated by the confluence of five distinct types of capital: human, social, physical, financial, and natural (Chambers and Conway, 1991). The production of space and policy is thus deemed to be appropriate and relevant when the criteria of diversity, adaptability, flexibility, and multiplicity are present, and the critical integration of these criteria is a prerequisite for sustaining a transformative process. Within Dharavi, a linked spatial-political landscape, transformation needs to elevate the negative notion of hutment dwellers to recognised citizens as tenement dwellers, and be facilitated by appropriate and relevant participatory processes. Cooperative conflict is a situation where the inherent reality of conflict is recognised and all parties work together in this contested context to reach an agreed point that is constantly reconstructed and renegotiated (Levy, 2007: 6). Currently a multiplicity of conflicting forces, visions, identities and power relations exist within Dharavi, where urban change is driven by central dominant forces (DRP, MHADA, etc.) and countered by peripheral resistant forces (the citizens of Dharavi, SPARC, NSDF, etc.) that struggle for inclusion in the process, with the latter’s claims negotiated by the Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP. Some actors have adopted strategies for inclusion and influence in this process by acting as a collective, as is the case with the Alliance of SPARC, NSDF and Mahila Milan, the first two represented on the Expert Advisory Panel. An identified platform for congruence is the productive capacity of Dharavi, providing an opportunity for cooperation within this contested environment. The desired result is that the aspirations and assets of the citizens of Dharavi become valued and included as integral parts of the urban network at multiple scales. ‘Citizen’ is explicitly used here as a political term to acknowledge a political community, as well as the rights, obligations and claims to which the state must be accountable (Friedmann and Douglass, 1998: 1).
1.4 Theoretical Framework In the context of these terms of reference, it is critical to clarify the entry point into the case, our understanding of the concept of transformation, and the criteria by which we judge the success of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project’s (DRP) transformative intentions. This clarification positions our outlook on the situation in relation to that of established actors and guides our proposals aimed at achieving such transformation. Dharavi is located in a web of contested urbanism through a perception of the production of space as an inherently conflictual process, where various forms of injustice are not only manifested, but produced and reproduced (Dikeç, 2001: 1788). Power in the redevelopment process is seen, through a Foucaultian lens, as underlying all social relations, being fluid in nature and having multiple sources. This
010 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
The four criteria used as a basis for assessment in our analysis and used as the drivers of our proposals are:
The plurality of identity and perception, both individual and collective, related to social, economic and spatial networks
These primary criteria seek to ensure the appropriate and relevant production of space and policy. The critical integration of these criteria is a prerequisite for sustaining a desirable transformative process.
The capacity to shape an ideological or strategic response within an existing constrictive framework
A fluid, versatile quality that effectively addresses divergent desires and priorities
The amplification, fragmentation, and integration of formative processes in order to offer suitable solutions for different requirements
1.5 Vision Dharavi stands at a threshold of heated debate fuelled by market pressures and conflicting interests related to the present reality and future image of Mumbai. In the context of the movement towards a global, universal city vision, we recognise the unique, multiple and dynamic character of Dharavi alongside the need to reconcile global demands with local aspirations of Mumbai. Highlighting the capacities, diversity and resilience of the citizens of Dharavi, we propose strategies of transformation, inclusion, livelihood and the production of building and urban forms must be critically integrated within a flexible and responsive framework of individual and cultural contexts and adaptations through time.
figure 1.5 diagram of actor pressures (adapted from Pieterse 2003)
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 011
BBC news channel, 2006. Life in a slum. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/ spl/hi/world/06/dharavi_slum/html/dharavi_slum_intro.stm] Chambers R., Conway G., 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. Lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 8th of May 2009. Dikeç Mustafa, 2001. Justice and the spatial imagination. Environment and Planning A. [http://www.envplan.com] Friedmann J., Douglass M., 1998: Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age. Wiley, New York. Levy Caren, 2007. Defining collective strategic action led by civil society organisations: the case of CLIFF, India. 8th N-AERUS conference held on the 6 September in London. Mahadevia D., Narayanan H., 1999. Shanghaing Mumbai – Politics of Evictions and Resistance in Slum Settlements. Centre For Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad. McKinsey & Company, 2003. Vision Mumbai: Transforming Mumbai into a world-class city. September, A Bombay First - McKinsey Report. Patel S., D’Cruz C., Burra S., 2003. Beyond evictions in a global city: peoplemanaged resettlement in Mumbai. Environment and Urbanization, vol 14, no 1, April 2002. Sharma Kalpana, 2000. Rediscovering Dharavi. Penguin books India, Delhi.
012 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 013
Process Assumptions and Limitations
Livelihood profiles and network patterns would become a key theme throughout our research, informing our conceptual framework and analysis, and subsequently laying the foundation for our scenario proposals.
2.1 Process Due to the shifting location of our work, the methodology used in this case evolved through time. Introduced on 16 January, 2009, the pre-trip research began in London on 23 January, 2009. A series of lectures and presentations was complemented with a vast literature review from books, academic journals and websites. Information was then triangulated to account for the various perspectives and potential biases of authors’ in order to provide a clearer foundation for mapping key actors involved in the case, as presented for critical feedback in London in February 2009. The next step, sustained until we left for the field in early May, was the development of our diagnosis and strategies, which again were provoked and challenged through feedback in early May. During our work in Mumbai, from 5 to 25 May, 2009, the established methods of data collection continued to expand and diversify alongside our perceptions of the situation. Regular morning lectures from individuals and representatives of the various actors were supplemented with afternoon sessions on site in Dharavi, facilitated by SPARC, KRVIA and Mahila Milan. Our fieldwork in Chambda Bazaar, Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata consisted of field observations and both semi-structured and informal interviews with residents, with the goal of bridging information gaps in the relationships between spatial design, policy and livelihoods. Five interviews were conducted with residents of Rajiv Indira, fourteen in Bharat Janata, and around 50 interviews in Chambda Baazar, with these including informal discussions alongside more formal in-depth semi-structured interviews. Key highlights from 24 of the in-depth interviews can be found in Appendix 2. Mapping of urban form, economic networks and livelihood patterns was also conducted in Chambda Bazaar to link together spatial layout at the scale of the individual nagar (neighborhood) with the whole of Dharavi through extensive networks of production. Livelihood profiles, as highlighted opposite, upper right hand side and in Appendix 2, and network patterns became a key theme throughout our research, informing our conceptual framework and analysis, and subsequently laying the foundation for our scenario proposals. The first took shape through the semi-structured in-depth interviews, where questions sought to understand people’s capacities and means of living, specifically drawing out the five forms of assets or capital: human,
social, physical, financial, and natural. Questions in these semi-structured interviews were generally grouped into broad categories of history, process and space, and were formulated for use in the rehabilitation buildings in Bharat Janata, then for home-based activities, for manufacturing and retail in Chambda Baazar. These questionnaires can be found in Appendix 1. For our own reflective practice, a blog was created to document and share our learning and challenges. Individuals were open to express their reflections through writing, photography or video, unpacking their experience in a specific moment, day or of the entire process and their role within it. The blog can be visited at http://buddsinmumbai.blogspot.com/. 2.2 Assumptions and Limitations As with any research project there exist various assumptions and limitations. In this case they positioned the work within a reality yielding conscious recognition of shortcomings and biases. The key limitation was the restricted time we had in the field, where one and a half afternoons were spent in Rajiv Indira, three and a half in Bharat Janata, and seven afternoons in Chambda Bazaar. Our time in Dharavi on these days were limited from 15h00 to 18h00, meaning that we were unable to witness, for example, changes in spatial use at different times of the day, or to speak with a broader diversity of individuals that may have not been present or visible at this time of the day. The time constraints intensified the selective, strategic decisions made in the field with regards to the interviews conducted and the areas prioritised for mapping. In order to gather a sufficient representation of the diversity within Dharavi, we set out to conduct as many interviews as time constraints allowed. While attempts were made to ensure that the vast diversity of people and place was uncovered in all three research sites, it is recognised that our findings must be contextualised in this limited timeframe and constraints we faced. Thus our success cannot be fully comprehended without a larger sample size of interviews and data collection. For the purpose of this research, assumptions were made that a sufficient and somewhat representative amount of the huge diversity of people of Dharavi was captured, thus meaning that our results and proposals are realistic and plausible, responding to the requirements and
016 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 017
TOWARDS THE DHARAVI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT?
Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Policy Comparison and Critique Physical Proposals and Critiques Conflicting Visions of the DRP Conclusions
Several policies shape the influence of the DRP, which have been created for various reasons and have varying impacts on the residents of Dharavi. Using these policies as a starting point, it is then possible to imagine the physical territories they will chart. They have the potential to either further embed existing inequalities, or to chart new territory toward overcoming them.
3.1 Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums Public land encroachment in Indian cities is neither a minor nor a new problem. Central, state and local government have engaged the issue since the 1950s with very different approaches. While the latter have a much greater relevance on housing matters, central government is “the largest single owner of urban land in India” (Burra, 2005: 68) (Figure 3.1). After India’s independence in 1947, the first government approach to the issue of slums has been a harsh policy of clearance; slums were systematically demolished without any consideration for the families living on them. The radical policy of slum clearance lasted more than two decades, until in the ‘70s the evidence of the method failure in addition to practical considerations called for a change. The government perception of slums changed from being a problem to a possible solution to the problem itself. The main achievements of this decade have been policies for the provision to slums of basic amenities such as water and sanitation, the recognition of the need to relocate slum dwellers affected by government
projects, and a census (1976) of slum dwellers living on government land. In the second half of the ‘80s the Bombay Urban Development Project ran two programmes (Slum Upgrading and Low-income Group Shelter Programme) that although did not gave exceptional practical results, have the merit of introducing the issue of land tenure and the idea of financing housing for LIG through the sale of properties to middle and upper income groups. In the ‘90s the idea of cross-subsided projects for LIG was consolidated, and due to World Bank pressure, the Government of Maharashtra included resettlement and rehabilitation has an integral part of every project. The Government aims were to minimize resettlements in favour of in-situ rehabilitation, to carry out the project with a more participative approach and to maintain the existing social networks. An important step towards the recognition of slum dwellers’ rights was made in 1995 with the approval of the Slum Rehabilitation Act; this act protects from eviction every citizen that can prove they have been living in Mumbai since 1st January 1995 (subsequently
Figure 3.1 figurea of evolution of governemnt approach to slums
020 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Figure 3.2 Mumbai, photo by Chirodeep Chaudhuri
Figure 3.3 Mumbai, photo by Chirodeep Chaudhuri
modified to 1st of January 2000). In 2001 the Slum Rehabilitation Act was amended and it was added that if demolition was unavoidable in order to clear land, some alternative accommodation must be provided for the affected people. 3.2 Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Under conditions of global neoliberalism that have characterised urban India from 1991 onwards, Mumbai has around 13 million citizens, with an additional 7 million in the suburbs and increasing numbers migrating from all parts of India over the past decades. While Mumbai became India’s financial capital in this period, at the same time over half the city’s residents live in informal settlements. One of Mumbai’s main goals is the transformation into a world-class city by shifting its image from the location of Asia’s biggest slum to a model of redevelopment (Mhaiskar lecture, 12 May 2009). In order to become a city comparable to Shanghai, politicians intended to replace informal settlements with high-rise developments. (Figure 3.2 and 3.3) Due to its strategic geographical location and pressures on the island city, as explained in section 1.2, the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) was introduced as an integrated special planning area in 2004 and it was declared as a crucial public project by the government of Maharashtra in 2007. The DRP has been developed by the architect Mukesh Mehta to the present. Declared as a special planning area in 2004, the Dharavi redevelopment Project (DRP) divides the area into five sectors for development by five private sector developers, to be selected through a transparent bidding process (Chatterjee lecture, 8 May 2009). It envisions a spatial transformation from horizontal, lowrise ‘slums’ to a high-rise podium style typology (Figure 3.4); yet how will this change be manifested in reality
(Figure 3.5). While the DRP process claims that it seeks to treat Dharavi residents as partners in the project and to ensure that livelihood issues are adequately addressed in planning and implementation (ibid.), there is at present no clear path or method for either to occur. Since the main parts of the DRP are based on the Slum Redevelopment Act, private developers are required to contribute to improve infrastructure. Under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS), adopted in 1995, private developers build social housing for the inhabitants on the site and in turn benefit from additional for-sale buildings to generate profits. However, these rules have been modified for the area of Dharavi in the DRP. 3.3 Policy Comparison and Critique Several policies shape the influence of the DRP, which have been created for various reasons and have varying impacts on the residents of Dharavi. Using these policies as a starting point, it is then possible to imagine the physical territories they will chart. They have the potential to either further embed existing inequalities, or to chart new territory toward overcoming them. One Single Solution According to the Maharashtra State Housing Policy for slum rehabilitation, the in-situ redevelopment can be implemented through a menu of options such as clusters, townships, and others. On the contrary, the Dharavi Redevelopment Project carries out in-situ redevelopment through the implementation of a single solution for the whole of Dharavi. This shows that the DRP does not refer to the unique characteristics of place, with over 80 different nagars in Dharavi whose diversity cannot be sustained through a single alternative. In order to sustain this variety, the DRP needs to be changed into a more comprehensive plan, focusing on citizens’ wideranging needs and aspirations.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 021
Figure 3.4 DRP proposal sketch: Mumbai Mirror
Figure 3.5 negotiating the change from hutment deweller to tenement deweller
only in rhetoric at present. Dharavi’s citizens are thus not Land Tenure The SRA secures land tenure as the basis for redevelopment; however the DRP considers only unit tenure rather than specifically the security of land tenure. The matter of land tenure status in the DRP is unclear. “The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) owns approximately 77 per cent of the land in Dharavi, with the rest held by other government and private parties” (Patel S. et al. 2009: 245). Furthermore, the land is used for various private leases and public purposes. The issue of land tenure seems to be a challenge to the DRP in cooperating with diverse interests between different stakeholders. In addition, the DRP provides certain residents with the security of unit tenure; hence it seems that the DRP does not guarantee existing residents the stable ownership of their house in the long term, leaving a possibility that the inhabitant will be evicted in the future. Community Participation Under the SRA, slum rehabilitation can be led by housing cooperative societies in partnership with NGOs. Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira are examples of SRA projects in partnership with SPARC and the Alliance. Even though the DRP mentions community participation, a participatory approach in Dharavi’s redevelopment exists
022 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
considered and their spatial and livelihood requirements and aspirations remain unrecognised. Eligibility The slum dwellers that can prove residence from before 01 January 2000 are entitled to permanent accommodation at no cost. The DRP is divisive at heart since it segregates those who are eligible to be resettled in the new rehabilitation units, (about 25% of the population according to Gautam Chatterjee) from the remaining residents of Dharavi, who are ineligible (cited in Business India, 2009). The residents who are ineligible will be left to find a new shelter and working space on their own. Transferrable Development Rights The SRA scheme notes that the surplus of Floor Space Index (FSI) should be used for the low-income housing and infrastructure on site. The DRP uses the surplus FSI as an incentive to the developers, who can sell additional development rights on the open market. It is quite evident that the surplus will contribute to the developers’ interest in maximizing their profits. This market driven policy will make it impossible to improve the quality of existing residents’ living conditions.
A Snapshot of the SRA
- Hutments existing prior to 01 January 1995 are protected - All hutment dwellers on electoral rolls prior to 01 January 1995 are eligible for rehabilitation (one unit / family) - Eligible residential hutments are replaced with 225 sq. ft. structure on the same site - Eligible commercial hutments are replaced with a max. 225 sq. ft. structure - If 70% of eligible slum dwellers agree to form a co-op housing society, they can implement a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - The developer contributes money, labour, and construction materials for rehabilitation units - Stimulus FSI to be used as an incentive for developers
Figure 3.6 DRP transformation in Dharavi
A Snapshot of the DRP - MCGM owns 76% of the land in Dharavi - Division into 5 sectors, undertaken through a public-private partnership model by 5 different developers - Stimulus FSI to be used as an incentive for developers - Global FSI of 4.0 (compared to 2.5) - 42% of land area for rehabilitation / 58% for market-sale construction - All hutment dwellers on electoral rolls prior to 01 January 2000 are eligible for rehabilitation (one unit / family) - ‘Podium’ Typology proposed as a singular solution - 11-Member Expert Advisory Panel Assembled in 2008 - Socioeconomic Survey of Dharavi conducted by the NGO, MASHAL - Formalises all economic networks, incrementally taxing the citizens of Dharavi - Free rehabilitation units to be 269 sq. ft. internal area with 31 sq. ft. balcony
(Source: Chatterjee meeting, 16 May 2009) 008
DHARAVI case of contested urbanism DHARAVI a acase of contested urbanism 023
3.4 Physical Proposals and Critiques Five Sectors The Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) proposes several physical alterations for Dharavi. The first and most crucial point, in terms of spatial planning, is regarding the division of Dharavi into five sectors. (Figure 3.7 and 3.8) These five sectors do not correspond to existing community boundaries and social nagars in Dharavi. The proposed division is made mainly by preserving partially the existing road network and by considering the physical layout of the road grid without understanding the social and cultural complexities within that network. According to this specific division, five different developers will undertake the redevelopment for each sector. It is quite evident that the developers will aim to maximise their profits without acknowledging the social and cultural richness of Dharavi. It is the state’s role, however, through the developmental plans, to achieve a comprehensive compromise between the needs of the developers and the aspirations of the people. Additionally, according to the DRP, 70% of new units are designated for rehabilitation; the remaining 30% is for sale, while more than 80% of this sale portion will be for commercial use, in order to finance the project. This fact brings into doubt whether the quality of the rehabilitation units will be equal to the ones designated for sale. Floor Space Index of 4 Another important element of the DRP is the increase of the Floor Space Index (FSI) from 2.5 to 4. This increase is applied only to Dharavi. Moreover, the rehabilitation units will not exceed the height of eight storeys (G+8) but in some cases, depending on the regulations, the number of floors will be increased to ten (G+10). The size of the rehabilitation units provided for free to the eligible slum dwellers will be 300 sq. ft., which can be raised to 400 sq. ft. with the payment of an extra construction cost. This again raises questions the inclusiveness of the project, since not everyone will able to meet the specific requirements of DRP. Furthermore, the increased FSI will contribute to higher urban densities, having massive impacts not only on the physical layout but also on the social and economic life of Dharavi. Podium Typology The third key element of the DRP is the proposed
Figure 3.8 The 5 sector by Mehta Figure 3.7 original Dharavi’s division in 85 nagars
podium typology (Figure 5.6). This image published in the Mumbai Mirror newspaper illustrates quite clearly the transformative intentions of the project. We can see how Dharavi changes from a horizontal, low-rise typology to a vertical, high-rise one. As seen from the image the residential units will be placed on the top floors of the buildings, while the commercial units will be located at the ground and first floor. The parking area will be on the third floor, just below the pedestrian only podium level. An emergent issue from this is how a monolithic typology can accommodate the daily needs of people and their aspirations for future. Will the proposed podium typology be able to accommodate the current functioning of multi-scaled enterprises? 3.5 Conflicting Visions of the DRP Government Vision “The project’s objective is their [Dharavi residents’] mass economic upliftment by providing better
024 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
alternatives of living and business opportunities” (Chatterjee, 2008). “The single most crucial task is to convince and convey the message to the 55,000 families of Dharavi that the redevelopment is for their good and that the government is doing it to scale up their economic abilities” (Chatterjee, 2008). Although the pressure towards the transformation of Dharavi comes from many different actors, the government is the initiator, driver and final decision maker in the DRP, with government departments such as MMRDA, MHADA and MCGM playing a primary role in its development. Government statements about the DRP highlight how the project has the aim of providing better living conditions for the residents of Dharavi, with a belief that upgradation can maybe take them into a world class city (Chatterjee lecture, 8 May 2009). Figure 3.9 illustrates the neoliberal trickle down vision of development through the three key elements in the transformation process as expressed by the Mumbai Transformation Support Unit, the organisation created to seek loans for mega projects and determine the technical inputs needed to transform Mumbai into a world-class city (Madan lecture, 12 May 2009). “The Slum Redevelopment Authority is supportive of the notion that the redevelopment of Dharavi should generate resources for the government, even if that means evacuating a portion of the residents and increasing the population density of the area, which is already one of the highest in the world” (Echanove, 2008). The argument that the philanthropic aim is not the primary one is sustained by recent statements made by government officers. The government’s vision for the DRP remains positive, despite the long delays that the project has suffered and the 2008 financial crisis, which has caused several developers to withdraw their bids. Private Sector Visions “The Dharavi makeover plan requires huge investments […] the original bid document required all the 19 bidders to pay 10% of the project cost upfront in the form of a bank draft” (Naik, 2009). Considering the public private partnership model in which the DRP is grounded, the government is placing
Figure 3.9 Transformation process of Indian cities towards a world class city
great value on the role of this actor for financing and development; thus their opinion is highly relevant. Mukesh Mehta, one of the key private sector developers backing the development of the DRP, defends it based on the critique of the previous SRA scheme and the need of Dharavi residents to enjoy amenities such as open spaces and infrastructure. According to Mr. Mehta the adjective ‘sustainable’ is the one that best describes the DRP, and at the Urban Age India Conference held in Mumbai in 2007 he summarised the DRP objectives as for rehabilitation of families and their businesses within Dharavi. Mehta’s positive vision of the DRP is summarised in his statement “We’re telling the slum-dwellers: ‘Instead of the 100 sq. ft. space you are living in, you will have 225 sq. ft. Instead of sharing one toilet between 1,500, you will have your own toilet, running water, well-lit homes. We will provide schools, colleges and parks’ ”(2007). But not all the developers see the DRP as a positive step; the concerns of some developers are focused on financial and procedural matters about the DRP’s feasibility. The Mumbai based property developer Housing Development & Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) provides an example of a sceptical vision of the DRP: “the project has become unviable and we are not sure when it will take off. There is uncertainty over the bidding process and the premium the government is asking. We do not want to look at projects which run over four to five years. Today, capital is not coming that easily and we do not want to invest a single rupee in an unviable project” (Pandey, 2009). The international firm HOK voluntarily prepared an alternative proposal to the DRP alleging that “today’s redevelopment effort threatens Dharavi’s contributions” (HOK, 2008). “The current developer-oriented process puts forth an approach based on divided, discrete superparcels
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 025
that may disregard the generations of culture, scale and texture that define this vibrant and relevant community” (ibid.). (Figure 3.10) NGOs and Research Institutions’ Visions “We think it’s a way to appear to do something for the poor while really gentrifying the area” (Patel cited in the Economist, 2005). “Even if they do re-house everyone, they are not likely to allow the residents much say in what kind of housing it will be and where” (Arputham, 2007). “Even if everyone, including Dharavi’s residents, agree that redevelopment is needed so that the dirt and the filth is replaced by decent living conditions and security of tenure, is the style and form of development chosen by the government the most appropriate for Dharavi?” (Sharma, 2008).
Dharavi was allocated to us against a payment of Rs 1 lakh to a Parsi landlord. So the land on which Dharavi’s Kumbharwada (potters’ settlement) is located belongs to us…” (Raju Chauhan, Dharavi resident, cited on World Prout Assembly). “I will be very happy for the redevelopment plan. If I have a good place for my business I want to stay. Change has to come. But here people are emotionally attached to each other. They don’t want to leave. They have everything here and they are happy. But change must happen. The airport is very close, the road. For me it’s the best place to work but if I cannot stay I’m willing to negotiate for a good place. We are preparing for this. We have to train the people. To make them have skills” (Fashion industry owner in Dharavi, interviewed on 11 May 2009). The previous statements summarise the different
NGOs such as SPARC have a critical vision of the DRP, but at the same time maintain a close and highly strategic relationship with government bodies in order to function as facilitators between different institutional levels. The main concerns expressed by NGOs regarding the DRP refer to the relocation of residents, the complete lack of an inclusive process and the possible consequences of a government/market-driven process of redevelopment. The main academic institution that has collaborated with the Alliance (SPARC, NSDF, and Mahila Milan) is the Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture (KRVIA). The school’s director commented that the DRP does not provide enough detail and is a tool for negotiation rather than implementation, and expressed concern that it is fundamentally driven by real estate returns (Anirudh lecture, 6 May 2009). Further concerns were shared about the excessive population density of Dharavi and the inaccurate demographic survey, which may lead to future plans based on incorrect calculations (ibid.). Residents’ Visions “Who says Dharavi does not belong to us? Our forefathers from Saurashtra came to south Mumbai in the early 1890s. In 1933, the government allocated us land, but our entire colony was burnt down. Then some powerful Gujarati traders pressured the government and 12.50 acres (5 hectares) of land in
vision that the residents of Dharavi expressed: there are sceptical groups that have been living in Dharavi for many generations and are ready to fight if their rights are not respected, then there are other more moderate groups that do not oppose the redevelopment plan, but are aware of the dangers that it may imply and therefore they want to be part of the process. Dharavi residents are an extremely diverse group, divided by social status, religion, origin, gender and age and their multiplicity of visions reflects this; such diversity is at the heart of the difficulty of reaching a general consensus. But the diversity of Dharavi is not the only challenge towards a more inclusive redevelopment: an attempt of setting up a group of representatives for the residents of Dharavi was made on January 2009 with the creation of a consultative committee, the Advisory Board (see article on the Indianexpress, 2009). Eleven members from different backgrounds were selected and invited to make recommendations to the government on different practical and organizational aspects. The committee’s task of steering the government decisions toward a more needs-focused approach through the translation of a possible general consensus into planning and policies proposals will not be easy and there is no certainty that it will make a real difference on the final implementation of the DRP.
026 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Arputham J., Patel S., 2007. An offer of partnership or a promise of conflict in Dharavi, Mumbai?. Environment and urbanization, Sage Publication. Anirudh Paul, 2009. “A Critique of the Government Plan: Dharavi Redevelopment Project”. Lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 6th of May. Burra Sundar, 2005. Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading in Mumbai, India. Environment and Urbanization, Sage Publications. [http:// www.sagepublications.com] Business Standard, 2009. Dharavi: HDIL won’t bid directly. Published by Raghavendra Kamath the 10th March. [http://www.businessstandard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=351397] Chatterjee Gautam, 2008. We are modifying development rules to give rise to a new city. Interview by Madhurima Nandy appeared on the livemint. com on 26th August 2008. [http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/25234629/ We-are-modifying-developmentr.html] Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. Cited in Business India, February 8, 2009. p.104. Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. “Role of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA)” lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 8th of May. Chauhan Raju, 2007. Dharavi’s real estate threat. Appeared on World Prout Assembly webpage on the 1st of December. [http://www. worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/11/dharavis_real_e.html] Echanove Matias, 2008. SRA & Mukesh Mehta. Article appeared on the website www.Dharavi.org on 27th of February. [http://www.dharavi.org/index.php?title=G._Surveys,_Projects,_ Designs_%26_Plans_or_Dharavi/Projects/SRA_%26_Mukesh_Mehta] Madan U.P.S., 2009. “Mumbai Transformation”, lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 12th of May. Mhaiskar Milind, 2009. “Role of MMRDA and Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) under Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP)”, presentation at SPARC khetwadi office on the 12th of May. Mehta Mukesh, 2007. Asia’s biggest slum set to turn into India’s Madison Avenue. Published in City Scape and Newsbytes on the 7th of August. [http://propertybytes.indiaproperty.com/?p=1323] Pande Hari, 2009. “Redeveloping Dharavi is not viable for us: HDIL”. Article appeared in Rediff online on the 10th of March. [http://www.rediff.com/ money/2009/mar/10redeveloping-dharavi-is-not-viable-for-us-hdil.html] Patel Sheela, 2005. Inside the slums. Published on the Economist the 27th of January 2005. [http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_ id=3599622] Sharma Kalpana, 2008. The pressure on slumlands. Appeared on Infochange in April 2008. [http://infochangeindia.org/200804107053/Agenda/BattlesOver-Land/The-pressure-on-slumlands.html]
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 027
CURRENT REALITY IN DHARAVI: ANALYSIS AND EMERGENT ISSUES
Context, scope and framework for analysis Experienced impact on livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira Urban analysis of Chambda Bazaar Anticipated impact of in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Bazaar Summary of analysis and findings: moving into the Scenarios
The overall aspiration of the people toward policy is to facilitate a transformation that benefits future generations. Spatial environment, though important was a secondary concern behind maintaininga livelihoods and promoting 02 DHARAVI case of contested urbanism better educational prospects.
4.1 Context, scope and framework for analysis Transformation is a dynamic process that is not new to Dharavi. Slum rehabilitation projects in the area first began in 1985 under the Prime Ministers Grant Project, housed within the Maharastra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), where redevelopment was intended for Dharavi by providing new infrastructure, reconstructing cooperatively owned housing for its inhabitants and relocating 20,000 families within the rest of the city (Mukhija, 2003: 42-45). In direct response to the concerns arising especially from the latter, NGOs such as SPARC, who had recently formed an Alliance with the NSDF, began to work in Dharavi with the initial intention to stop all evictions (ibid.). SPARC’s role in the Alliance evolved over the next decade, alongside policy changes to the Slum Rehabilitation Act (SRA) in 1995, into one of a non-profit developer Cooperative Housing Societies. The analysis seeks to understand the experienced impact on livelihoods of these two rehabilitation projects under the SRA policy (Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira), to outline the results of the urban analysis of Dharavi’s Chambda Bazaar area and to identify the anticipated impact of potential developments in the latter.
The information collected from interviews and observations at the given sites were filtered through the analytical concepts of policy, livelihoods and space and the four criteria – diversity, adaptability, flexibility and multiplicity – that form the theoretical framework. As illustrated in Figure 4.1, in each section of the analysis the findings are located at the appropriate intersection, with three circles used to illustrate the link of an issue to the framework. A solid circle indicates a positive outcome or a strong relationship, a white circle illustrates a negative outcome or weak relationship, and a striped circle shows partially positive and negative outcomes or strong and weak relationships. The figures in each subsection of Section 4.2 analyse the experienced impact on livelihoods in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira, while figures in subsections of 4.4 use the framework to analyse both the experienced reality (i.e. what was observed in the field) alongside the anticipated impacts of in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Baazar.
Figure 4.1 Example analysis diagram- issue criteria vs core analytical concepts
030 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
4.2 Experienced impact on livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira 4.2.1 Introduction to the Rajiv Indira Housing Cooperative Located on the northern edge of Dharavi Rajiv (Figure 4 .2) Indira was inaugurated as a completed project in February 2002. Fifty-four families formed the Rajiv Indira Cooperative Housing Society in March 1995 and by 1999 the project included two
other Societies, creating a total of 209 families for rehabilitation. With SPARC as the developer, this project was the first undertaken by an NGO under the SRA, where five apartment blocks have been built and each tenement received 225 square feet. Three buildings have been used to house community members and the other two buildings have been sold on the market to make up costs and generate profits (Nirman, 2003).
Figure 4.2 Rajiv Indira location within Dharavi area
The Rajiv Indira-Suryodaya Cooperative Housing Society -Number of families to directly benefit: 209 -Projected total cost: £1,842,306 -Projected total cost recoveries: £2,365,552 - TDR sales (69%) Residential unit sales (21%) Commercial unit sales (9%) -Projected peak finance requirement and sources (in order of size): £1,066,055 (Citibank- baked by a £50,000 guarantee from Homeless International), fresh CLIFF and SPARC/Nirman (including recycled CLIFF) -Other resources leveraged: Land (government) and infrastructure (government)
Source: Homeless International, 2008:10
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 031
4.2.2 Introduction to the Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society One hundred and forty-seven families formed the Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society in 1991 after seeing the work and progress of the Rajiv Indira. The agreement with SPARC was made in 1991, the demolition of huts began in 2003, and hutment dwellers moved into the three completed buildings in 2006. The construction project is still in progress: two more blocks with 50 units for sale are yet to be built. Located in the ‘middle’ of
Dharavi (Figure 4 .3), the site does not have the roadside ‘edge’ advantage of other in-situ redevelopment projects; part of SPARC’s motivation was to illustrate that upgrading is possible in this context, and to test the Alliance’s hypothesis that Dharavi has an internal market for residential and commercial units (Kantha, n.d).
Figure 4.3 Bharat Janata location within Dharavi area
Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society -Site area: 2,507 square metres, each household receives a 225 square foot unit. -Number of families to directly benefit : 147 -Projected total cost : £1,020,443 -Projected total cost recoveries: £1,317,498 Residential unit sales (57%) TDR sales (37%), -Commercial unit sales (5%) -Projected peak finance requirement and sources (in order of size) £616,537 (National Housing Bank backed by a £85,353 guarantee from Homeless International), fresh CLIFF and SPARC/ Nirman (including recycled CLIFF) -Other resources leveraged: Land (government) and infrastructure (government)
Source: Homeless International, 2008:10
032 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Figure 4.4 Commercial activity scenes with current plan location and corresponding analytical diagram
4.2.3 Analysis and main findings Commercial activities While the Rajiv Indira Cooperative Housing Society has no members holding commercial permits providing entitlement to commercial space in a redevelopment project, the Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society has five members with registered commercial activities (Figure 4.4). These members lived on the second floor and ran their businesses on the ground floor; currently, four of the five rent their residential/commercial structure. Analysis found that the SRA policy creates a tradeoff for owners of both commercial units and residential space located in the same structure to choose between one or the other. In Bharat Janata, all five owners chose the former and forwent the latter. As three buildings have been already constructed while two are yet to be built, the new commercial spaces will be relocated in the ground floor of the fourth building.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 033
An interview with one commercial establishment renter highlighted concerns about the future location inside a compound and off the road, possibly reducing business, increasing rent and requiring new residential accommodation in Dharavi or elsewhere. Findings illustrate that the SRA policy fails to recognise the multiplicity of use in existing building structures, therefore rendering itself inflexible to people’s requirements and to individuals’ adaptability over time.
Home based activities Home-based activities exist at different scales in Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata. Larger-scale activities, informal in nature and requiring space at least equivalent to half a flat or more, required significant adaptation to new conditions, and people showed great capacity in doing so, as illustrated in Figure 4.5.
While the households interviewed reported overall satisfaction with their conditions, the challenges for large scale home-based activities in the shift from horizontal to vertical living need to be addressed at a policy level. At present, SRA policy does not recognise the multiplicity of activities and use of space inside flats nor the flexibility of space as an issue to be addressed in order to give people the opportunity to arrange space according to their needs, instead being forced to adapt their livelihood within restricted space. A wealth of small scale home-based activities also exist in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira, including making plastic bags, hairnets, metal sponges and tailoring, as illustrated in Figure 4.6. These small scale activities form part of a wider chain of production that connects people living in buildings with the rest of Dharavi and its economic networks. Households interviewed in Bharat Janata often found it necessary to earn a supplementary income in order to pay their allotted building maintenance costs, such as the lift and water pump for example, that cost Rs. 400 per household per year, as well as individual electricity bills averaging Rs. 300 per household per month. Policy again does not recognise the multiplicity of use of space nor the flexibility as issues to be addressed regarding small scale home-based activities These small scale activities form part of a wider chain of production that connects people living in buildings with the rest of Dharavi and its economic networks. Households interviewed in Bharat Janata often found it necessary to earn a supplementary income in order to pay their allotted building maintenance costs, such as the lift and water pump for example, that cost Rs. 400 per household per year, as well as individual electricity bills averaging Rs. 300 per household per month. Policy again does not recognise the multiplicity of use of space nor the flexibility as issues to be addressed regarding small scale home-based activities.
Figure 4.5 Larger-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram.
The few cases of larger-scale home-based activities investigated have adapted to the restricted space for their work, with improved working and living conditions.
034 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
individualised. In Bharat Janata, the corridor spaces on each floor where the doors of the apartments open are empty as people prefer convening and socialising on the ground floor (Figure 4.7). Some women interviewed have adapted to high-rise living by setting up a daily meeting time on the ground floor of the building. It is evident that policy does not recognise the multiplicity of ways in which people use space, thus not providing enough spatial diversity to meet people’s habits and ways of living, especially regarding communal life.
Figure 4.6 Small-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram.
Fractured social networks Over fifty percent of women and teenagers interviewed experience a sense of social isolation in moving from hutment dwelling to tenement dwelling. Numerous interviewees explained how the physical layout of their hutments was more conducive to socialising, as the doors and windows faced the street and were always kept open, and interaction with others was spontaneous, frequent and dynamic. While all interviewees expressed an improvement in their quality of life, many noted that the relationship between neighbours is now weaker and lives are more
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 035
Figure 4.7 physical layout of interaction space in the previous and the current situation and corresponding analytical diagram
Dhandesh, 14 years, BJ “We play on the ground floor of the building but often when we are running around we fall and hurt ourselves. We would like to have a better area to play”
Communal space around the buildings In both Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira the preferred communal areas were the open spaces on the ground floor interspersed between buildings. Despite the evident need by residents for such social gathering spaces, the design of these areas has been neglected in terms of both quality and functionality. Regarding the first, well constructed, good quality communal space is important to improve social cohesion among residents,
Figure 4.8 The quality of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram
especially children as illustrated in Figure 4.8. Policy fails to consider the quality of such spaces around SRA buildings, an important issue as such areas change and adapt through time. In terms of functionality, people spoke of and were observed to use the space within the Bharat Janata building compound in many different ways, as illustrated in Figure 4.9. While many children play on the ground floor, in Rajiv Indira (Figure 4.10) most adults use the open corridors to socialise, perhaps reflecting the transitory nature of the first space as it is next to the ‘edge’ of Dharavi and located on a main path inside. Both in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira the diversity of activities and the multiplicity of use of such communal spaces in terms of functionality of design are not recognised at the policy level.
036 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Figure 4.9 The use of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) with current plan location and corresponding analytical diagram
Figure 4.10 The use of communal space around the building (Rajiv Indira) with current plan location and corresponding analytical diagram
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Participation in design When interviewees were asked about their involvement in the design process, the majority answered positively (example in Figure 4.11). Yet as these responses were unpacked, it became clear that the concept of ‘participation’ in regards to design of units was more appropriately defined as ‘informing’. In the case of Rajiv Indira, the residents were presented four (4) options by the architects before one was selected by the Society Committee. In Bharat Janata, only one unit option was provided. Virtually all the residents interviewed regard the architect as expert and therefore fail to recognize their potential voice in the design process. The majority of the women spoken to had little or no direct knowledge of the process, having been passively informed of meeting results by their husbands. While recognizing the contributions and mobilizing efforts of the Alliance, it is this disregard for particular attention to spatial use and diversity of residents that
emerges as a key critique and finding of our analysis. In additional interviews with members of SPARC it was made clear that primary concern in these pilot projects was re-housing citizens. Spatial design was treated with a standard, acceptable approach by local architects that were appointed for their experience and sensibility to the area and situation. While recognizing the learning curve involved in pilot projects, especially those undertaken by a grassroots initiative, we assert that greater attention be given to spatial needs that arise from multiplicity of use. The idea of participation is deep with subjective situational interpretations. Re-housing people may have been the primary objective of SPARC in these cases, though when dealing with the physical construction of a building, the design and impact it has on social progress and commercial sustainability, must not be relegated. On a wider scale, overall analysis illustrates that SRA policy fails to consider the true involvement of people in the design process, a fundamental component used to identify the diversity of requirements within the community. The lack of appropriate inclusion into the design process renders an inflexible policy and thus a holistically inappropriate provision of space. An emerging consequence seen in the two case studies and other SRA projects is that people are forced to continuously adapt a standardized space to meet their family needs and livelihoods.
Ravi- Bharat Janata community leader “We have been involved in the design process, the architect showed the plan to the eleven members of the housing cooperative and then we put the plan on the wall so the community could see it.”
Figure 4.11 Interview photos (with the community leader of Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram surrounding the question of participation in design
4.3 Urban analysis of Chambda Baazar Chambda Bazaar, strategically located at the center of Dharavi, has been the locus of growth of commercial clusters for over a century, as illustrated in (Figure 4.12a,b,c). At present the informality and the strategic location of the district offers flexibility of space and livelihoods, attracting migrant populations of different regions, cultures and religions. A unique character district with a diverse mix of livelihoods functioning at different scales of the business network and having varying spatial demands, the urban analysis unpacks issues of urban density, land use and its relationship to livelihoods.
038 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Location and Accessibility: The triangular area defining Chambda Bazaar has emerged as a predominantly commercial district due to its strategic location near the Bandra Kurla Complex and good road-rail connectivity with the rest of the city: three railway stations are found on Dharavi’s edges, with Sion station used largely by people in Chambda Bazaar. St. Rotides Marg and Cross Road link the Dharavi Main Road and the 90 Feet Road, the latter two being the most important north-south road linkages inside Dharavi (Figure 4.13). All other internal roads are pedestrian. The
Figure 4.12a Dharavi development in 1933 “Bombay Guide Map Including Parts of Salsette”: Map by Surveyor General of India, showing further increased built form.
Density and Land use: Chambda Bazaar
currently has a high residential tenement density of 706 per hectare (KRVIA, 2007), with both purely residential high rise clusters in the middle to home based commercial working units spread all over (Figure 4.14). The district, 8,478 square metres bounded by three main peripheral
Figure 4.12b Dharavi development in 1969 “Bombay Guide Map”: Map by Surveyor General of India, showing High Density built form in some
Figure 4.13 Major road linkages throughout Dharavi
Figure 4.12c Dharavi development in 2008 Present Situation: Dharavi at present with Chambda Bazaar showing the Highest density of built form.
Figure 4.14 Land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 039
Open spaces: Activities including community gatherings, play areas, festivals and marriages happen in open spaces adjacent to the communities using such areas (Figure 4.15a, b). These spaces were observed to be good quality and well maintained by a key actor, found to be either the local political party office, youth club, place of worship, or religious community. Stakeholders of such spaces were quite positive, valuing them as part of their recreational life and living area for the community. They are mostly covered and paved to protect from monsoon flooding and heat, as well as well lit and under constant community surveillance, perceived to be safe by both women and children. The network of open spaces is discontinuous, guided through labyrinth streets. dozen of ‘nagars’ or neighborhoods.
Figure 4.15b Activities around shared open space
Figure 4.15a Use of open space
040 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
4.4 Anticipated impact of in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Baazar
4.4.1 Commercial activity A diverse spectrum of commercial activities was encountered in Chambda Baazar, ranging from large scale bakeries to small scale candy store owners. Established enterprises were mostly related to jewellery making, leather goods, garments and baked goods. Small scale commercial activities were largely retail shops that sometimes run small production units in or outside a residence contributing to a larger chain of production (Figure 4.16). Otherwise they cater to the local market and are dependent on customers inside Dharavi. The size of the enterprise often depends on both the trade and the level of networks in which they are situated. The location of the business was dependent upon the local entrepreneurs who preferred working in clusters according to their regional and/or religious background. The overall aspiration of the commercial enterprise owners was to retain their existing flow of goods and network of customers.
The tanned leather from Chennai is processed within Dharavi.
Final product of leather ( leather jackets) is sold Outside of Dharavi
The tanned leather from Chennai is processed within Dharavi.
Customer networks throughout India
Figure 4.16 Production chain at various geographical scales
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 041
small scale candy shop
medium scale embroidery shop
large scale bakery
Figure 4.17 Various scales of commercial enterprise
Diversity of commercial activities and multiplicity of space Commercial activities within Chambda Baazar have thrived because of their flexibility, diversity, adaptability and multiplicity in the present informal scenario. Enterprises researched illustrate how, over generations, small to medium scale businesses such as gem and jewellery makers have leveraged their locational advantage and responded to local demand while, large scale bakery owners, for example, have clustered and diversified their commercial activities (Figure 4.17). Such cases demonstrate the ability of individuals driving commercial activities, in terms of financial, physical and human resources, to adapt, diversify and transform their enterprises in order to secure future benefits. Yet the SRA policy and the DRP does not recognise the potential financial power of these enterprises to pay for the multiple spatial requirements necessary to support their diverse economic network to secure their business in the future. 042 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Excluded users of space Official documents and interviews made evident the fact that the Dharavi Redevelopment Plan (DRP) does not recognise the rights of renters, transient tenants nor the multiplicity of uses of one structure by families or enterprises. At present a large section of the commercial activities in Chambda Baazar are reliant on migrant workers who work for free or nominal remuneration, such as the provision of food and shelter. Multiple business owners living within Dharavi often give dormitory spaces for these transient workers the within their commercial clusters (Figure 4.18). Most single enterprise owners are reliant on skilled workers and provide them with food as well as shelter in close vicinity to the shop. The workers are dependent on public amenities provided within the cluster. Such flexible conditions of work-live and the adaptations owners have made through time to address their labourers’ needs is not addressed in SRA policy.
Live and work tenements of workers (generally migrants) are spatially located in proximity to or within the business units where they are employed. Figure 4.18 Live/work space (migrant workers)
Lack of community involvement Interviews with Chambda Baazar commercial owners illustrated a lack of transparency and information regarding the Dharavi Redevelopment Plan (DRP), and that no attempts have been made to initiate community involvement in the plan. In absence of any organisation of workers looking after their rights, the treatment of the workers differs in diverse trades. At present, they have
“I am the third generation who has been in this jewellery business. I currently live outside Dharavi while my workers are living within. My customers are local which I depend on heavily. I personally do not want any changes. My customers will be displaced and I could lose this network. I do not like the mall typology. These cluster enterprise works best because it retains the profits.”
no collective voice in the DRP and their future in Dharavi depends on their employers. The vast population of migrant workers, the powerhouse Dharavi, would be forced to move out of Dharavi to live and commute to work, which implies the increases labour price with further consequences. The SRA policy, defining stringent criteria for inclusion in the project, might disrupt the smooth functioning economic network of Dharavi, a situation that takes priority over domestic needs.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 043
Figure 4.19 Different scale home-based commercial Many home based commercial activities are one step in a larger network of production. In many cases the materials, are taken from and returned to the same workshop.
4.4.2 Home based commercial activity Diversity of home-based activities Small scale home-based commercial activities found in Chambda Bazaar are usually undertaken by women to supplement the main income of the household, where their activities form one step in a larger chain of production (Figure 4.19). These production chains, that have different scales of manufacturing, benefit from the diversity and flexibility of the social networks existing in the area, as employers can informally ask women to finish the work quicker than usual or to share work with friends and neighbours if difficult schedules have to be met. This kind of flexibility allows the workshops to run more efficiently and highlights the current mutually beneficial organisational network, sustained by informal, long-standing relationships built on reliance and trust between employers and employees. Relocation of the workshops or formalisation of these networks will reduce flexibility and may hinder the growth of the existing diverse networks. SRA policy fails to understand the diversity and flexibility of space and networks that homebased commercial activities require. 044 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
medium scale Household: Fakir Ahmed Azaad
Household: Bilkis small scale Small Bilkis Household: Scale
Mr Fakir Ahmed Azaad’s runs a thriving tabla making business. Each tabla takes 3 days to make and sells for Rs. 3000-4000. Mr. Azaad’s children work as his apprentices will inherit it in the future. Mrs. Bilkis’s embroidery work is mainly done to supplement the main income of the household and she earns Rs. 2 per finished piece that she brings from the workshop.
Multiplicity of Spaces
Residential and commercial tenements are often very small and have a multiplicity of co-existing uses, for example as a shop, for daily living, as a work space and storage space, meaning that many activities are extended into open space outside the main structure. While the existing hutments provide relatively easy access to communal spaces, and people have adapted to
ANTICIPATED IMPACT Figure 4.20 Different scale home-based commercial
such practices, the situation is far from convenient. The variations of activities in single spaces gives open spaces a diverse character as demonstrated by Figure 4.21. The multiplicity of use of space highlights the adaptation that has taken place in response to the lack of space as well as infrastructure. While younger people find communal spaces to be enjoyable and colorful and providing an opportunity to socialise, older people find it difficult to climb up and down very steep stairs many times a day
Larger scale traditional home-based businesses run by entire families that can be comparable to a medium scale commercial enterprise also exist in Chambda Bazaar. Working from home, families can capitalise on the contribution of all family members; this adaptation to maximise human resources is critical for successfully sustaining larger scale home-based activities, as illustrated by the stories in (Figure 4.20).
in order to do daily chores. Currently, the low-rise homes allow residents to adapt their homes to the needs of their family. Marriages result in more family members and it is common to extend the current house by building another room on top or adjacent to it. Such options will not exist in high-rise dwellings and families could potentially get fragmented, as members of the same family will have to find alternate housing options.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 045
Recognition of diverse activities Policy also underestimates the current multiplicity of spaces. For instance, the DRP guidelines aim to provide 6% commercial space in each building that is supposed to accommodate the commercial activities of all residents of the building. While small scale home-based activities can continue within the tenements, activities that need more space such as Mr. Azaad’s tabla making business cannot be sustained in such circumstances. A small scale home-based activity that is substantially common is papad making. Currently the papad makers have the flexibility to use open spaces, needed to make and dry the product during the day, according to their needs. When interviewed they reported their work would be seen as a disruption in buildings where open spaces would be very limited and regulated.
Papad makers use communal open spaces for commercial activites
Extention of households chores into open spaces
Residents have easy access to groud floor and open spaces Figure 4.21a photos showing diversity of open space- commercial/residential
Figure 4.21b analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (diverse spatial use) Residential and commercial tenements are often very small and are used for shops, daily living, work space and storage at the same time, extending many activities like to the outside of the main structure.
046 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
4.5 Summary of analysis and findings: moving into the Scenarios The ability to determine ones own future is a key aspect of transformation. Our research in Rajiv Indira, Bharat Janata and Chambda Bazaar emphasises this point, having revealed the socio-economic capacity to adapt spatially, thus sustaining activities and livelihoods. Adaptability was found to be high and inherent amongst all families and enterprises interviewed, despite the vast degree of diversity. Dharavi, known for its diverse productive nature, contains a widespread international network heavily dependent on skilled and unskilled migrant workers and entrepreneurs. Their exclusion from SRA policies and the DRP not only carries individual implications, but also a fear in the decreasing availability of cheap labor, leading to an increase in the overall cost of the production. A major consequence here lies in the spectrum of financial capacity of Dharavi, as certain wealthier citizens and potential investors could take their business elsewhere thus dissolving the rich economy of the area. A significant aspect of this stimulated economy are home-based livelihood activities, where social and economic practices unfold within multi-functional spaces, branding the dwelling with an important dual value. Beyond the physical and productive values, an emotional investment exists that creates a sense of belonging in the residents. This is especially evident in older nagars such as Chambda Bazaar where dwellings have stood for more than three generations, symbolising strong family heritage. However, current policies lack sensitivity in regards to historical value and more importantly the recognition of rights in terms of tenured land ownership. Perhaps more central to our analytical framework and conceptual framework in terms of policy limitations is the lack of inclusionary processes. The failure of nontransparent policy provisions have created disparity between authorities and citizens. In regards to the spatial design of the SRA projects studied, there appeared to be a general lack of clear participatory strategy. People were informed about the project, but not necessarily involved in their schematic production, thus the multiplicities and diversities of spatial use and networks were largely ignored. The levels of adaptability and flexibility were transferred to the individuals alone
rather than incorporated into the plans. While these observations are arguably the responsibility of a particular projects’ inception, they represent the general lack of policy attention. On-site research in Chambda Bazaar revealed further disparities in the fact that many people were unclear as to the specificities of the DRP and the potential implications it held for them. In this case, the desire for broader informative mechanisms is essential alongside more attentive processes of inclusion. The overall aspiration of the people towards policy is to facilitate a transformation that benefits future generations. Spatial environment, though important was a secondary concern behind maintaining livelihoods and promoting better educational prospects. Analysis has shown a resiliency of people to adapt challenges created by new situations and to expand their social and economic capacities. The limits of their capacity, however, call for greater inclusion amongst the policymaking processes that in turn regulate social and spatial transformation. The following scenarios illustrate a shifting of our analysis and findings towards informing proposals that conceptually address these notions of inclusion and participation around policy, space and livelihoods in order to address the adaptability, flexibility, multiplicity and diversity within urban redevelopment.
Mukhija Vinit, 2003. Squatters as developers. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. London. Nirman website, n.d. Rajiv Indira Suryodaya and Ganga housing society, Mumbai. (http://www.Homeless International, 2008. Cliff Annual review 08. Astwood Design Consultancy.) Kantha Binti, n.d. Slum rehabilitation in Bharat Janata housing cooperative project. SPARC. Unpublished.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 047
BRIDGING THE GAP: RATIONALE FOR THE SCENARIOS
At the critical point of defining the conceptual approach of our proposals, based on our analysis, findings and vision, a significant disparity became evident in the choice of where these should be focused. Finding a balance between the DRP vision and the Alternative Visions was obviously critical but this was primarily constrained by the fact that the DRP vision is currently in the process of being implemented.
The analysis and findings, based on our field experience in Dharavi and our parallel engagement with the various actors through presentations and discussions, provided an adequate platform to identify key areas for conceptualising potential interventions. These key areas include the need to increase community participation at multiple levels of the transformation process, and to recognise the divergent spatial and policy needs to accommodate livelihoods alongside a wider range of flexible and adaptive spatial typologies based on the diverse needs and capacities of Dharavi’s citizens. At the critical point of defining the conceptual approach of our proposals, based on our analysis, findings and vision, a significant disparity became evident in the choice of where these should be focused. As illustrated in Figure 5.1, conceptually we identified two polarised extents of Dharavi’s contestation, the first represented by the DRP vision. This vision is influenced by diverse forces
such as political interest, real estate markets and global
financial markets. Under the unification of the DRP all these dominant forces act holistically towards implementing transformation. On the opposite end of the DRP is what we term Alternative Visions, the resistant forces representing the multiplicity of interests including NGOs, research institutions as well as the enormous diversity of the citizens of Dharavi, including established communities, landlords, local businessmen, residents, migrant workers and religious groups, to name a few. Of critical significance is the fragmented nature of these visions in comparison to the unified front presented by the DRP. Finding a balance between the DRP vision and the Alternative Visions was obviously critical but this was primarily constrained by the fact that the DRP vision is currently in the process of being implemented. We found that many of our conceptual proposals required a
Figure 5.1 Setting the Scenario
050 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
fundamental shift away from some directions being taken by the DRP, while other proposals could be adapted into the already initiated framework of transformation being implemented by the DRP.
This process led us to conceive the need for two scenarios: Scenario 1: This Scenario is intended to be adapted into the DRP within its current framework for transformation. It heeds and adheres to all of the key principles instilled in the DRP, such as the maintenance of the five developer sectors, the global Floor Space Index of 4, the modernistic podium typology of spatial massing and the other planning and design guidelines. It seeks to improve the structures of citizen representation and participation within the existing framework of the DRP and it infuses findings from the field towards meeting spatially diverse livelihood needs. Scenario 2: This Scenario aims to present an alternative scenario that is not completely limited by the exacting stipulations of existing DRP policy framework. It addresses what elements change and justifies such alterations, and intends to find an entry point that incorporates the requirements and aspirations of the citizens of Dharavi as highlighted in our analysis and findings, whilst maintaining a level of intention to act opportunistically to benefit Mumbai as a whole.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 051
Scenario 01 The Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Project Scenario 02 The BUDD Charette: Towards an Alternative Vision
The primary argument behind our alternative vision challenges the singularity of the urban and architectural form proposed, whilst the secondary argument comes as a direct response to the policies of exclusion of the DRP. As we argue for policies to be informed by the reality of specific places, we propose a progressive approach to transformation that is directly linked with the context, and that prioritises the community before other stakeholders.
The Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Project
Towards Citizen Participation in the DRP Spatial Transformation in the DRP: Beyond Provision, Towards Adaption & Enablement
06Scenario 01 Chapter
054 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
The proposals presented as part of Scenario 1 have been developed for adaption and inclusion into the Dharavi Redevelopment Project’s (DRP) process and policy framework as it currently exists. It adheres to the current fundamental principles of five Developer Sectors, a FSI of four and Podium Spatial Typology and offers two main proposals for integration into the DRP. The first regards the inclusion of steps towards increased citizen participation in the DRP transformation process, while the second seeks to respond to our analysis for the need to diversify basic spatial provisions towards enabling long term flexibility and adaption of use based on an acknowledgement of the diverse needs and capacities of the residents of Dharavi.
6.1.1 Towards Citizen Participation in the DRP Citizen participation is the involvement or cooperation of citizen groups, bodies or organisations with the state or development agencies (Desai, 1995). The role of citizen inclusion in a process claimed a s participatory can vary widely, ranging from their manipulation by dominant forces to citizens creating and driving the transformative process. Our understanding of participation as a staircase, as illustrated in Figure 6.1, is informed by Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation and the International Association of Public Participation. The diagram illustrates the lowest level of participation as manipulation, where dominant powers distort citizens’ engagement in the process (Slocum, 1995). The highest form of participation, empowerment, enables a sense of self-reliance on skills and abilities and is achieved when citizens themselves are deeply and meaningfully engaged in elaborating the transformative process. While ‘manipulation’ and ‘empowerment’ represent the ends of the spectrum, there are numerous steps in between. Overall participation should be transparent, with those involved being not only
Figure 6.1 Varying Degrees of Participation
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 055
informed, but included at some level in the elaboration of the process. Thus far the DRP process had a contested path towards achieving a platform for appropriate citizen participation. Initially the DRP adopted no form of citizen representation in implementing its vision for transformation in Dharavi. It showed no intent of altering this stance and was pushed to do so after continuous pressure was placed on the state and central government by several groups consisting of local civil and business organisations, NGOs, academics and activists who campaigned relentlessly for a rethinking of the DRP process and the inclusion of citizen rights and representation in the transformation process (Patel & Arputham 2008). The outcome of such pressure has been the appointment of the Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) to the DRP, as officially recognised in January 2009. The DRPs engagement with this committee, formed of a diverse cross section of professionals, NGOs and academic institutions such as KRVIA, represents the first major step in achieving a degree of citizen participation in the DRP, although it remains that significant scope still exists for an improvement in broader-based citizen engagement.
Having been present at a point in the process where the EAC has been presented with the DRPs intention of implementing the modernistic ‘podium’ spatial typology it became evident to us that the EAC still face substantial challenges in trying to negotiate the direction for transformation being carried by the DPR. There is a poignant note on contestation of the transformation process: While the EAC has made significant headway in initiating its own capacity for negotiating the path of the DRP, it now has to contend from within, the reality of its disproportionate power share in the transformation process. In keeping with this Scenario’s intent of working within the existing contextual parameters posed by the DRP, it has been assumed in principle that the latest proposals for the‘podium’typology will be implemented. What we are proposing are potentially achievable methods of citizen participation in this already initiated implementation process, that will look to take steps up the conceptual model of citizen participation (fig 6.1) In the current context of the DRP two possible steps
Figure 6.2 exclusionary nature of the DRP
exist. The first step is obviously quite limited in terms of the degree of participation that can realistically be achieved due to the advanced status of the master planning process. Many defining decisions to date have been made with no citizen engagement. Thus in the context of the current state of the DRP the first form of participation that can be reached is one of ‘Informing’, this takes the first step of creating transparency of the transformation process and addressing the apprehensions towards change within the community based on their misunderstanding of the DRPs intentions. Key Constraint to Participation in the DRP: Who participates? Under the current DRP framework, ‘eligible’ participants for a citizen engagement process are technically only those who are registered on the voting roll since 1 January, 2000. At present we are not certain how many people are included in this register. Those individuals technically ‘ineligible’ under the DRP, including migrant workers, unregistered residents, tenants or those who became residents of Dharavi subsequent to the cut off date, are thus constricted in
056 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Figure 6.3 Means of Design Communication
their role of the participatory rocesses proposed for the DRP. While these ‘eligible’ and ‘ineligible’ statuses, as depicted in Figure 6.2, may technically be the case, we strongly believe that those who are ineligible to receive housing at no cost under the scheme should also be part of the information session. Such individuals represent an important segment of the population that will continue to be part of Dharavi after the implementation of the scheme, and in this sense, are stakeholders that need to be included. Step 1: Informing citizens about the DRP The first step towards citizen participation in the DRP must be information provision. Our interviews in the field illustrated that residents either had a partial idea, were misinformed or had no basic conception of the DRP intentions. The most basic form of informing would not necessitate personable consulting forums but be through official posters and pamphlets can be made available to keep the public abreast of what is occurring in the DRP process. Once architectural typologies have been in effect designed, drawings, models and even mocked out tenements can be placed for public display in locations in each sector. This would build awareness and also balance expectation of what is to be provided under the DRP. If the DRP is willing to scale up the level of informing, it could decide to engage in appropriately sized public presentations and forums. A potential way to inform a wide audience is by organising informal group meetings for various citizen interest groups, a crucial step to bring clarity and understanding as well as transparency to the process. Finding an appropriate size for the audience of such information sessions is important as
the aim is to address a reasonable quantity of people in an environment intimate enough to encourage people to voice their concerns and openly ask questions. It is also critical that the information is stated in a way that is understandable to those attending the meetings, thus use of pamphlets and architectural models can be useful tools (Figure 6.3). Citizens can be made aware of these meetings through different media. In the context of Dharavi, orally communicating the details of these meeting can provide an inexpensive and effective way to create awareness. In addition, informative posters outlining the topic, date and location of meetings can also be useful to inform people of these meetings. Pamphlets can be passed around to share the basic information about the DRP, to stimulate further discussion during meetings. An important challenge to overcome when engaging with the citizens of Dharavi pertains to the question of accurate representation. Such elements must be delicately determined as it is crucial to ensure that a representative amount of interest groups are met. Step 2: From Informing towards Consulting and Involving Dharavi’s citizen groups The ability to move up the stairs of citizen participation towards consulting involves engagement and consultation with resident representative groups. Given the constrains that exist within the DRP with recognition of citizen rights and representation making this step up is obviously challenging. We have however identified one area where such a step would be plausible. Working within this scenario’s stated remit of staying within the DRP framework, we realise that it is unlikely that the DRP would want to initiate the formation of citizen groups
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 057
particularly concerned with the transformation process. However from our fieldwork we came to understand that a host of existing resident groups already exist in Dharavi. This sector of civil society representation includes existing social, cultural, religious and recreational groups. Within the contexts of the framework of the existing DRP we have indentified an area of scope for consultation with existing civil society groups. Sections 7.3 and 8.0 in Appendix IV-A of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Draft Modification focuses on the inclusion of recreational grounds, playgrounds, gardens and park as well as welfare halls, Balwadis, society offices and religious buildings. Consulting civil society on such areas within the current DRP plan would help better mould these areas that the DRP has already endeavoured to provide. A forum for participatory engagement can thus be initiated in each sector once the developers and existing civil society groups have been identified for these designated areas. The scope of participation would be defined at the outset and focused on the open space and communal areas identified in Sections 7.3 and 8.0 of the DRP. The actors for this engagement as identified in Figure 6.4 would include representatives from the developer including an architect, officials from the DRP. The forums could be facilitated by NGO groups and the community could be advised by academic groups such as KRVIA. Figure 6..4 multi-actor participation diagram
Conclusions While we acknowledge that given the current state at which the DRP stands, the initiation of citizen participation may be seen as a ‘retrofitted’ gesture aimed at co-opting or appeasing various communities into agreeing with the directions that have been primarily decided for them. We however still believe that there is still an overwhelmingly substantial benefit to be had by both the DRP and the residents of Dharavi if methods and practice of participation are introduced into the DRP transformation process and implemented with transparency and genuine intent and integrity. ‘I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholseome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.’ Thomas Jefferson 1820
6.1.2 Spatial Transformation in the DRP: Beyond Provision, Towards Adaption & Enablement When analysing policies addressing the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP), the term hutment dweller is used to classify the status of many existing citizens. Appendix IV-A of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Draft Modification states the rights of hutment dwellers as:
‘1.1 Hutment-dwellers, in the slum or on the pavement, eligible in accordance with the provisions of development Control regulation 33(10) (A) shall in exchange for their structure, be given free of cost a residential tenement having a carpet area of 20.90 sq.mt. (225 sq.ft) including balcony, bath and water closet, but excluding common areas. ‘
Figure 6..4 multi-actor participation diagram
The conceptual basis of the policy defines the status of eligible residents in the DRP by the typology of their abode, where the DRP’s spatial change is predicated on a transformation from ‘hutments’ to ‘tenements.’ This spurred reflection on the question of what occurs when a ‘Hutment Dweller’ becomes a ‘Tenement Dweller’?
Figure 6.5 proposed monolithic typology of the DRP
When viewing the illustration of transformation forseen by the DRP in the Mumbai Mirror (Figure 6.5) one realises that a precedent for analysing transformation
058 DHARAVI aacase of contested urbanism DHARAVI case of contested urbanism
through the future typology is already evident in Dharavi, as its spatial fabric is scattered with many high rise buildings, some older chawl buildings but also many recent SRA constructed high-rise blocks. Hence the unpacking of this transformation based on typology can be informed significantly by our fieldwork analysis in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira Housing Cooperative Societies. The following three case studies highlight key findings.
Case Study 1: Mr Hariharan Mr Hariharan (Figure 6.6) represents a large range of families interviewed in Rajiv Indira. He is very appreciative of the positive impact that the transformation from hutment to tenement has had on himself and his family’s lives, the most significant benefit being the improvement of sanitation and the provision of running water in the home. The space he was provided in his tenement, although limiting in some ways to his family’s long term growth aspirations, is adequate for their current requirements. As a vegetable vendor at the local market, he does not rely on his residence for livelihood activities and the provision of a 225 square foot tenement has sufficiently served his needs and capacities.
Figure 6.6 livelihood profile in rajiv indira
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 059
Case Study 2: Mr Krishnan Mr Krishnan (Figure 6.7) provides another case in terms of aspirations and capacity. As a clerical worker at the Mumbai Airport he has a stable and relatively substantial income and in turn demonstrates a much higher capacity to invest in his in home, having spent in excess of Rs 3 Lakh in modifying his tenement. The high priority he places in on investing in his home is evident in the exceptionally high quality of the finishes he has paid for such as the wall and floor tiling, the sliding glass partitions to the loft and modern fittings in the bathroom and kitchen. This investment is however limited to modifying the decorative aspects of his home. In terms of needs Mr Krishnan believes that the home satisfies his current family size of four although apprehensions exist regarding his family’s growth potential in this home. This is a view shared with most other residents interviewed in Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata. Culturally families in these communities grow as
children marry, with the growth accommodated in the same home. While such changes may arise in the coming years, Mr Krishnan’s resources and capacity is not taken into account and thus irrelevant in affording additional space to grow. The inflexibility for growth beyond the 225 square feet is a critical constraint here. ‘Hutments’ allow for more growth and adaptability than the standard sized ‘tenement’.
Figure 6.7 livelihood profile in rajiv indira
060 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Case Study 3 Mr Subiah Mr Subiah (Figure 6.8) and his family presented a case that explicitly highlights the need for acknowledging the reality of large scale home-based activities in residential tenements. The family of six all participate in either the making or selling of their potato vada, with their 225 square foot home acting as the storage space and preparation centre. The family has no option but to prioritise the accommodation of their livelihood before the needs of their own personal space. As such, pockets of potatoes and onions and space for grinding and frying equipment take up the majority of the space in this family’s home.
They have also been unfortunate in being allocated a top floor unit in Rajiv Indira, as the units on the top two floors of the building do not have the 14 foot ceilings and thus loft spaces provided on the floors below. This stemmed from a late development in the brief of the project that required the addition of two floors to the building. As such a lift, normally to be included in building of this height, was not provided. The Subiah family hence have to incur a delivery cost of Rs. 300 every 10-14 days to carry large quantities of produce up five storeys of stairs. This cost is one they did not have to pay in their previous roadside hutment as they were able carry the produce to their home themselves. This capacity to pay in on average in access of Rs. 600 per month for deliveries illustrates that the family has the ability to utilise the same amount of money per month to pay perhaps a return on a loan for additional floor space that would have served their requirements in the longterm.
Figure 6.8 livelihood profile in rajiv indira
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 061
Deductions Based on Case Studies The fieldwork analysis of Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata strengthened our apprehensions regarding the provision of a single sized typology of residential tenement t hat negated the reality of diverse needs and capacities present amongst the citizens of Dharavi. The diversity within Dharavi exists as a multiplicity of not just culture and society but also needs, resources and capacities. The DRP is not reflectively informed nor seemingly acknowledging the diversity present at multiple levels in Dharavi’s citizens. Designing for Enablement: Recognising Diversity and Providing for Flexibility and Adaptation In response to our findings on the diverse needs and capacities that exist amongst the ‘Hutment Dwellers’ that are to be rehoused in the DRP into tenements, we propose a range of basic spatial options that can be adapted to cater to families’ their divergent aspirations, capacities and needs. On average families numbering between five to six people have to live in a single room tenement. In Rajiv Indira the use of loft space on the lower floors provides families with some level of flexibility to adapt their homes to their needs. To the average family it afforded them the value of privacy between sleeping spaces amongst adults and children: the obvious need for this spatial adaptability and flexibility to address diversity and multiplicity of use is unaddressed in the current DRP. Indeed, further to this is the DRP decision to not allow 14 foot high loft typologies in future buildings causes a critical constraint for the design of units to provide any form of flexibility. While the DRP intention of increasing unit sizes to 269 square feet internally and providing a balcony of 30 square feet is a step in the right direction, this one size will still never adhere to the diverse long terms spatial needs of the majority of affected families. Options for growth The DRP induced constraint for individual units to have ceilings not higher than 8 feet means that this scenario investigates only lateral growth options (Figure 6.9). The premise of the proposal is to provide the provisional 300
square foot residential unit as the standard basic unit to all eligible residents, but alongside this option offer the potential to purchase additional floor space to the provided unit.
Figure 6.9 possiblity for expansion under the DRP
Costs and Feasibility The proposal tries to balance the diverse needs and capacities of communities with maintaining structural and commercial feasibility. This is done by allowing only two additional options each with a further 100 square feet (Figure 6.10). The space provided within the unit will remain bare and primarily the same as the standard units, thus leaving the onus of adapting the internal spaces to the individual owners to achieve at their own pace. Hence the additional construction costs are limited to the extended size of the floor slab, the addition of two windows and a minimal amount of additional bricks for the longer wall. This additional construction cost, because of its basic nature, should be affordable to residents. In a conversation with a senior DRP official, such a solution was deemed a ‘win-win situation’because if people paid for the building that cost it would not be need to be recouped by the developer, hence the amount of FSI granted to offset building costs would be somewhat curtailed. He also stated that the additional floor space could be provided at a subsidised rate of Rs. 300 per square foot. For the purposes of our proposal we have increased this figure to Rs. 400 per. This equates to a cost of Rs. 40 000 and Rs. 80 000 for 100 square feet and 200 square feet respectively.
062 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Figure 6.10 options to purchase additional space
Figure 6.11 enabling spatial proposals
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 063
Design The generic design diagrams presented in Figure 6.11 are based on the unit designs used in Bharat Janata. They are not proposed to remain the same but attempt to illustrate the principle of growth potential from the additional floor space. The impact of having different sized units will affect the overall design of the buildings, but this is seen as well within the potential of architects to derive buildings that accommodate this larger unit typology using modular design principles to maintain the structural feasibility. Flexibility and Enablement The hypothesis of staircase to participation presented at the outset for this scenario illustrates the fundamental constraints to participation under the current DRP plan. By maintaining the provision of the single type of type of tenement, the most that can be accomplished is informing residents of what their allocated residence would resemble. Adopting the proposal to option in additional floor space provides the potential to take significant steps up the ladder. By allowing the process to recognise diverse capacities and needs, the DRP process would be moving towards the threshold of ‘consult’ and ‘involve’. In the longer term, this could evolve towards ‘empower’ based on people being enabled to adapt their spaces to their needs and invest capital into their homes. The recognition of the diverse capacity of people within Dharavi makes this proposal viable. Based on the case studies from Rajiv Indira that we have identified we can assume that for instance a person such as Mr Krishnan who invested 3 Lakhs on decorative modifications to his home would have opted to take the extra 200 square feet option and had sufficient room to adapt the space for his future extended family. Or in the case of Mr Subia the Rs600 per month that now being spent on delivery could have been directed to towards paying for some much needed additional space to accommodate his family’s home based activity and living requirements. It must be recognised that the process of transformation in the DPR does not stop after the provision of standardised tenements to hutment dwellers. It is merely
an intermediary phase that precedes adaptation to the habitual environment that is provided. The opportunity exists within the DRP to allow for this adaptation phase to be enabling in the long term to the citizens of Dharavi. To do so requires acknowledging the diversity that exists culturally, socially and economically amongst residents and allowing them the room for adaptation and growth. Provision without flexibility removes the potential for enablement and reduces long-term sustainability.
064 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
The BUDD Charette: Towards an Alternative Vision
Revisiting the Vision The Concept Redevelopment Strategies Process of Citizen Involvement Catalogue
06Scenario 02 Chapter
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 065
1988), which recognizes that the ‘development of slums has to be through the participation of people and their local leaders’ (Sharma & Sita, 2000, p. 3734).
The BUDD Charrette has been developed as a response to the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP). Its objective is to present an alternative scenario based on the policy framework in place, without being unconditionally limited by it. Instead of developing a plan that stands completely outside the embedded framework, the proposal is set halfway between theoretical notions that support grassroots transformation and the very real pressure coming from the city level. It is intended as a response in a process of negotiation.
Limitations of the Proposal Whilst this alternative scenario defends the need for a pluralistic approach to design, it does not tackle the issues of the delivery system. Although the discourse supporting a need of plural methods of provision (Keivani & Werna, 2001) has became widely accepted, we believe this concept to be too detached from the framework and policies in place to be included in a realistic alternative vision. As an urban development proposal, the vision presented in this section does not represent an end result, but rather the key elements of a process. The visual support found in this section thus aims to provide explanations to the concepts put forward, and is by no means illustrative of definitive urban and architectural Presentation For this purpose, the ethos conceptualised in this scenario comes as an answer to the contested elements of the DRP. The primary argument behind our alternative vision challenges the singularity of the urban and architectural form proposed, whilst the secondary argument comes as a direct response to the policies of exclusion of the DRP. Our emergent vision of Dharavi is one that recognises the multidimensionality of the modes of tenure in Dharavi. Our understanding of ‘Urban transformation’ as the evolution and production of space in direct response to the converging forces of external actors and the internal needs of the people and their diverse livelihoods, stands as the central element of our proposal. This definition of a propitious transformative process disputes the DRP’s basis and priorities. We perceive the multiple needs of the community as paramount, thus explaining why our programme aims to incorporate the city needs within Dharavi such as the creation of new residential stock, the extension of the BKC as a growing financial centre, new commercial development, etc. instead of trying to force the needs of Dharavi into a plan which is clearly detached from the current setting. Although this strategy seems to distance itself from the policy framework supporting the current plans for Dharavi’s redevelopment, is actually in line with the National Housing Policy
066 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
forms. We are thereby presenting an urban planning intervention in an alterative way (Patel, 1997: 822) and in doing so, departing from the conventional master plan format.
6.2.1 Revisiting the Vision As part of our initial vision of Dharavi as a place with a unique, multiple and dynamic character, where global demands and local aspirations can be merged together and the production of new urban forms are consciously integrated within flexible contexts, the vision of BUDD Charrette proposal can be divided into five challenging orientations and objectives: I. Bettering the system of provision to meet basic needs in Dharavi, to mitigate the problematic living conditions as experienced by the most vulnerable sectors of the community. II. Assuring the prosperity of an environment that recognises the livelihoods of the citizens of Dharavi, to allow the urban form to be flexible to diverse and changing needs by adapting to them through time. III. Equipping Dharavi with a political
framework which supports the creation of a
physical environment highlighting the capacity, diversity and resilience of the community in place, in order to assure the progression of its character. IV. Integrating elements of the formal city into Dharavi so as to dilute the differences between the ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ city to ultimately eliminate the stigma associated with Dharavi. V. Integrating development areas that cater to the needs of the middle-class and private market, so as to reconcile the needs of Mumbai and those of Dharavi while making the cross-subsidisation of the redevelopment projects possible.
contrasting and complimentary conceptual strategies. The concept supports our definition of transformation while trying to manoeuvre within the restrictive framework of the DRP. The map found in Figure 6.12, inspired by our vision of Dharavi, aims to conceptualise our proposed interventions: • Opening Dharavi to Mumbai, as illustrated by the burgundy arrows • Blending in the differences between the ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ city, as illustrated by the smaller green and yellow arrows • Creating high-density zones at strategic points in Dharavi (near the three train stations located around Dharavi, and near the Bandra Kurla Complex), where high-rise structures intended for the private sector will be located • Conservation of the vernacular character of the historical/
6.2.2 The Concept In order to realise our objectives as stated in our revisited vision, we have developed a concept that recognises the need for pluralism and inclusion. The wide range of solutions produced is reflective of our
central zone of Dharavi by proposing interventions inspired by existing urban forms • Introducing a transitional zone between Dharavi’s historic centre and the proposed high density zone to harmonise the cityscape while allowing for vertical redevelopment schemes to be strategically located.
Figure 6.12 conceptual proposals map
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 067
To achieve this, the concept presented in this section diverges from the DRP in 4 important ways: I. Abandonment of 5 sector division: This departure from the DRP attempts to successfully translate the unique social, cultural, economic and spatial character of each nagar into the proposal, building on existing resources. It allows for development that recognises Dharavi as one place instead of an amalgamation of 5 sub-zones. It also allows for a development that is incremental and informed by its own process as opposed to the proposed model which has been created to allow for the simultaneous development of five zones by as many actors, all in isolation from one another. II. Abandonment of the FSI regulatory tool: The FSI regulatory tool in place, which prescribes a global floor space index of 4.0 for the whole of Dharavi, presents unnecessary constraints and backs up unsupportable densities. It is not reflective of the needs or reality of Dharavi, but rather of the interests of the private sector. III. Recognition of the migrants living and working in Dharavi: This addition to the plan comes as a response to our recognition of the role of migrants in Dharavi’s complex and diverse lexis. It plans for the needs of the most vulnerable portion of the population and in this sense it also pertains to the goal behind the SRA to eliminate slums in Mumbai. IV. Redefinition of the role of the community in the planning and redevelopment: This second addition to the current plan is proposed in order to assure that the development of Dharavi is representative of the true needs and aspirations of the community. It ensures the sustainability of what is being provided while fostering feelings of ownership by the community in regards to both the product and the process. 6.2.3 Redevelopment Strategies As recognition of the multidimensional character of the needs of the citizens of Dharavi, our redevelopment strategies propose a wide range of interventions. The
concept proposes options that reflect the needs of the current citizens of Dharavi, the migrants and those of Mumbai as a whole, instead of a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Based on the analysis of multiple findings gathered in the field, our program recognises four broader architectural typologies and associates each of them with a number of morphological typologies currently existing in Dharavi. The idea is first to link each architectural type to a specific function, such as home-based economies, manufacturing activities, residential units, and so forth, and second, to establish coupling between architectural forms and urban layouts (morphological typologies). These relationships between urban and building forms are much less diametrical as we acknowledge that architectural forms should be associated with as many types of urban tissues as possible (Figure 6.13). We judge this to be especially important for the residential units as we recognise the importance of exterior spaces and their different uses among different communities. The variant architectural types are associated with a range of morphological tissues, allowing an array of spatial configurations. Policy Matrix In order to recognise and understand the complex policy environment created by the DRP, we have designed a policy matrix in which each of our four proposals are placed, highlighting the new condition of policy needed making evident our position in contrast to the current policy sphere 6.2.4 Process of Citizen Involvement Before the elaboration of a detailed plan for the redevelopment of Dharavi, it is essential to develop options that address the needs of the citizens therein. These options should come as a result of direct field observations, surveys and exchanges, and the direct involvement of the community (Figure 6.14). The question of participation introduces complexities as it ventures into integrating grassroots participation in a framework that operates from the top-down. The scale of the project brings about a new level of complexity. The scheme we have developed to implicate citizens in the process has required concessions in order to be achievable. It is separated into three different phases, each of them associated with a different time frame and level of citizen involvement:
068 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Figure 6.13 development strategy schema The main morphological typologies found in Dharavi will be conserved in the central zone in order to minimise the disruption of the milieu. Although changes of the urban form will occur, our intention is to allow the community to continue living in a place where the urban tissue and layout of open spaces reflects the needs as well or better than it currently does.
Figure 6.14 process of community involvement
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 069
I. First Stage: The first stage starts with research and analysis by a professional team (NGO, development practitioners; internal or external to the community). These findings will then inform the design and layout options which architects and planners will elaborate and develop. The design and creation of a wide range of options will be done in collaboration with citizen group representatives. These representatives will be large enough in number to ensure an accurate and symbolic representation of a variety of communities. The interactions at this phase are circular and continuous. The citizen representatives and the designers will work as a team to elaborate options, before presenting them to other citizens and communities. II. Second Stage: In the second stage, citizens will be given options to choose from in order to assure that he/she is being provided with an alternative that fits his/her needs. Firstly, citizens will decide which architectural typology fits his/ her needs best. Secondly, each person will be given layout options so that the interior spaces are adapted to the requirements of the future owner/renter. Informative posters will be displayed around Dharavi, which will illustrate in 2D (plan) and 3D illustrations (renderings) the possible options for each type, as shown in Figure 6.15. In addition, full-scale model units (proto-types) will be built and opened to the public to visit. Each family will then be given the opportunity to choose a unit layout. In this stage, the unit recipients will also make explicit their preference in term of urban layout (morphological typology). III. Third Stage: In the last stage of this process of citizen involvement, the preferences of the people will be compiled. With this information, the designers (architects + planners) will develop a plan for Dharavi that accommodates the needs and choices of citizens. The proportion of each typology and layout to be built will be directly informed by the previous stage.
Second stage First stage
070 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Figure 6.15 layout options poster
Figure 6.16 urban density map The zones illustrated on this map are conceptual, with an aim to illustrate the idea of the creation of zones that will be used for different architectural types. The size and limits of these zones should vary depending on the needs and choices of the community (see Second stage of the ‘Process of Community Involvement’ section). The intention of this map is to illustrate where the private development (high-rise) should be located, while showing how the cityscape will be harmonized between the high-rise and low-rise zones through the use of mid-rise units.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 071
6.2.5 Catalogue As our proposal recognises the need for forms that vary according to functions, we have developed four typologies for our conceptual catalogue as illustrated in (Figure 6.16) A. Home-Based Units Description This is a low-density typology, with buildings ranging from G+3 to G+5. They are located in inner areas of Dharavi in order to preserve the existing streetscape. The typology focuses on households with home-based businesses, and is concentrated in the southern area of Chambda Bazaar. Current Situation The proposal keeps the ground floor as retail use. It can be used by individual owners for selling products, or it can be rented out to other tenants (Figure 6.17). The shop fronts along the street are intended to preserve the street view of Chambda Bazaar, while the first floor holds the living space – a 300 square foot unit. This typology is designed to sustain the current livelihoods of residents with home-based activities. From the analysis, some of the activities require larger spaces with higher headroom, thus units with higher headroom are proposed. This high ceiling unit enables multiplicity, allowing citizens with diverse aspirations to be accommodated. The larger headroom also allow mezzanine floor to be built. Concept The fundamental concept of this typology is to separate the working space from the living space (Figure 6.18). However, instead of dividing the working space and living space into two units, a vertical separation is proposed to keep the two spaces within one unit. Currently, many people live within a crowded house along with their products and materials. The same space can be used for many purposes. This means that when some family members are working, others cannot sleep or be involved in other family activities. The mezzanine floor is proposed to create a vertical separation while providing privacy to some of the family members. The household can use the mezzanine as working space with the first floor as living space or vice versa.
Figure 6.19 Place policy matrix Figure 6.18 proposed space-use arrangement Figure 6.17 current situation
072 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Policy This adjusts the government’s policy as demonstrated in the DRP (Figure 6.19). It abandons the podium and high-rise typology. The convergence of livelihood space and living space is recognised. Unlike the DRP, productive activities will not occur under a podium-level. The proposed typology maintains the 14 foot headroom proposed in the DRP for commercial units. The retail spaces are directly on the ground floor instead of raised on the podium level, and the layout is designed in a collaborative manner with community representatives and the leaders of some of the home based industries. Households can then choose their desired layout from several options. B. Work-Based Units
Figure 6.20 migrant’s use of space
Description This typology varies from G+3 to G+4 in height and is designed for small, medium and large manufacturing industries in Dharavi and their workers. The concept behind this typology is to recognise the needs of these thriving industries, which are central to Dharavi’s functioning. It proposes the grouping of small industries by including the retail, production and living aspect of these industries in the spatial design. These units will be located in the lowest density zone of Dharavi. Inspired by the existing manufacturing clusters in Dharavi, these work-based clusters will most often be organised around open spaces. Current Situation Dharavi’s economy is fuelled by small and medium industries, which often process goods from raw materials to the final product. Often owned by local residents, these industries mainly employ migrants who come to Mumbai for work to earn money then sent back to their villages. More often then not, these migrants readapt the workspace at night to use as a living/sleeping space. They often work, sleep and eat in the same interior space, as illustrated in Figure 6.20 These industries are often grouped by phases of the commercial process (production, resale, retail, etc.), but not by types of goods sold/produced. Therefore this has additional transportation needs (and costs) since the materials are transported between clusters as they progress from raw materials to end products ready to
Figure 6.21 production Networks
Figure 6.22 separation of spatial use
Figure 6.23 Place policy matrix
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 073
be sold. Although this cost is rather minimal and the distances travelled are small, it adds up to significant sums in this setting of financial constraints. What is more, these numerous deliveries add pressure and congestion to already strained transportation infrastructure. Concept The concept is to spatially group sub-industries and separate spatial uses at the scale of the units. At the scale of Dharavi, we are proposing the creation of clusters where all phases of production are integrated. This would minimise the costs of the final goods, while allowing these small industries to gain recognition by partnering with the other members of the same industry (Figure 6.21). At the scale of the unit itself, our concept suggests a vertical segregation of function within each work-based cluster. The ground floor will be reserved for direct resale to customers and retailers, while the first floor will be used to process raw materials. The second floor will be used for the processing of raw material into the finished product. This has been located on the second floor as we expect the processed material to be easier to move vertically than the raw material. Lastly, we are proposing separate accommodation on the top most floors of these work-based units (Figure 6.22). This separation is crucial for the betterment of the livelihoods of the migrant population of Dharavi working in the manufacturing sector. This residential section should take the shape of accommodations, and has been inspired by college residences. They will be around 100 square feet each. Common areas (kitchen, living area, and toilet) will be located on each floor. Policy At a policy level, this proposal departs from the DRP at one additional level; it does not comply with the podium typology (Figure 6.23). This distance in comparison to the DRP is essential in maintaining the character of the historic centre of Dharavi. It also adds to the DRP as it integrates rental stock to the plan in order to house the migrant workers. This is essential for the amelioration of poor living conditions, and to assure that new slums are not created outside the limits of the redevelopment area.
C. High-Rise (Rehabilitation) Description This typology varies from G+5 to G+7 in height and aims to house rehabilitated families. These mid-rise buildings will be located near the edges of Dharavi, serving as a buffer zone between the high rise buildings near train stations and the low rise units in the centre of Dharavi. Current Situation This typology has emerged for two major purposes, the first of which is to improve the living conditions of the current inhabitants. The living conditions are not desirable at the moment, as hutment dwellers live in overcrowded houses with inadequate basic infrastructure, both physical and social. Piped water is not guaranteed and the sewer capacity is not enough to extract rainwater from the street during the monsoon period. By centralising the residential area, infrastructure can be provided in a more systematic fashion. A central pump room in each building will provide clean water to each unit at sufficient pressure to the highest floor. Sewers from each unit will collect the wastewater and discharge it to the district sewer system of Dharavi. The second purpose of this typology is to free up the space for private residential development. Right now, squatters are distributed throughout all of Dharavi, with most of them living in two storey houses. By stacking these houses in a vertical manner, the footprint of the building can be reduced (Figure 6.24). With higher FSI, the same footprint area can allow more floor space and thus cater to more households. The saved space can be utilised for high-rise private housing, discussed in the following section, which will cross-subsidise the cost of the development. Concept The units are designed to preserve and nurture economic and social networks. This typology is also designed to maximise the communal space on each floor, allowing women and children to gather easily outside their units. The space can be a common corridor or atrium with a large opening to allow natural lighting and ventilation. People can retain the activities carried out in front of their hutments, such as drying food or clothes.
074 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Each household is provided with a unit of 300 square feet, most of which is living area (Figure 6.25). From our analysis, a large number of households have been able to adapt the space and allow small-scale homebased production, such as jewellery making and flower selling, inside their homes. This type of house is therefore suitable for families not requiring large spaces specifically for livelihood use. Policy In terms of policy, this rehabilitation typology is in line with the DRP. The only variation is the abandonment of the above ground podium (Figure 6.26). The residential units are built directly on the ground floor instead of the raised podium level. Like the other typologies, the layout will be designed by the architect and KRVIA with a feedback loop from community representatives. After the scheme design of the floor plan, each household will be able to choose from a number of layout options.
Figure 6.24 current situation
D. High-Rise (Private Sector) Description Understanding the need for cross-subsidised development, we believe that the presence of high-rise buildings in Dharavi is a symbiotic alternative that serves the private market as well as the citizens of Dharavi. Such a typology is quite disruptive to the organic way in which Dharavi has been developed, with heights of G+15 to G+30 and residential units ranging from 500 700 square Feet. Therefore, it is to be implemented only on the periphery of Dharavi. These peripheral zones have been identified based on their unique advantages, such as their proximity to railway stations and main roads. This will help to integrate part of Dharavi to the greater urban fabric while protecting and providing continuity to the activities currently inherent in its centre. Current Situation An idea has emerged to attract a new flow of high income groups currently living and working in different sectors of the city with the new offices and commercial activities to be supplied. Dharavi would help to release pressure in the busy southern area of Mumbai while including itself in the wider urban fabric through the facilitation of a “growth centre” that the city demands (Figure 6.27).
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 075
Figure 6.26 Place policy matrix Figure 6.25 proposed arrangement
Concept Our vision for Dharavi in the skyline of the city is a smooth transition from vertical structures, already imposed by the proximity of the planned Bandra Kurla Complex to horizontal ones. This new typology in the area works as a liminal space that absorbs all the external forces the city of Mumbai exerts over this sector and translates them into new signals, allowing the residents of the interior to creatively adapt to the challenges of the new urban environment. The inclusion of this category of building, along with the other three we identify in this scenario, provides continuity to the natural image of Dharavi. The buildings are thought of as creators of new spatialities within Dharavi and of new residential stock for the rest of the city (Figure 6.28). Commercial activities in the buildings will be supported by a range of multiple services such as hotels, restaurants, theatres, convention halls, etc. giving to outsiders another appreciation of Dharavi’s resources. The development of these structures will thwart the current pressures of large-scale development applied by the government, while improving the living conditions of residents and resolving spatial and density issues in Mumbai. Policy The ground level podium proposed in the DRP as the new public surface for the whole area of Dharavi is wholly rejected in this vision (Figure 6.29). Alternatively, we suggest the integration of more human scale podiums that enrich the spaces at ground level of particular individual buildings. In this way the new vertical clusters will offer different alternatives that will help to reinforce the character of each place.
Figure 6.27 current situation (Bandra-Kurla complex)
Figure 6.28 proposed arrangement
P P DR DR P P m DR t from DR fro h o nt wit en ion tm itio ne act dd e tr n li Adjus I A R
High Rise (Rehabilitation) Work-base units Home-base economies
Figure 6.29 Place policy matrix
076 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
6.2.6 Conclusion The conceptual catalogue we have created is reflective of our concept and illustrative of our criticism of the current DRP. Although we recognise the need to accommodate the needs of Mumbai in Dharavi, we challenge the singular form proposed by the DRP and propose densities that are more adapted to the needs of the community in place. As we argue for policies to be informed by the reality of specific places, we propose a progressive approach to transformation that is directly linked with the context, and that prioritises the community before other stakeholders.
Arnstein Sherry, 1969. A ladder of participation. Journal of the American Association. Vol 35, nº4. Desai Vandana, 1995. Community participation and slum housing: A case study of Bombay. Sage Publications, London. Keivani R. & Werna E., 2001. Models of housing provision in developing countries. Progress in planning 55, pp.65-118. Patel Shirish, 1997. Urban Planning by Objectives. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 16 (Apr. 19-25), pp. 822-826. [http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4405308] Sharma R.N. & Sita K., 2000. Cities, Slums and Government. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 42 (Oct. 14-20), pp. 3733-3735. Economic and Political Weekly. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4409859] Rocheleau D., Slocum R., 1995. Participation in context: key questions. In Power process and participation: tools for change. ITDG, London, pp.1730.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 077
Critical Perceptions Balancing the Real and Academic Beyond Mumbai - Conceptualising Place and its Future
As the DRP takes a lead role in the transformation of Dharavi, are the correct priorities being set in place regarding the diversity of citizens and livelihoods? Do the policy processes that regulate social transition and physical manifestation allow for flexibility and adaptation over time? Does the ‘world class city’ vision align with historical trends, current realities, and future predictions?
As illustrated in the analysis and scenarios, the situation in Mumbai, and specifically Dharavi, is rife with conflicting voices, visions and concerns of an indeterminate future. Operating within this contested scene, under the premise of offering practical and alternative proposals for redevelopment, provided great challenges not only in regards to our daily production, but also our own perceptions of what it means to engage in such environments as a practitioner, two concepts that will be discussed herein, followed by a conceptualisation of present and future Mumbai. Addressing these challenges amidst exposed realities and notions of a context existing in a constant state of flux yielded a continuous reassessment of methodologies and aproach. Our adaptability in response to reality checks and surprises thus emerged as an essential element throughout the process.
SPARC, our facilitator and liaison, was paramount in connecting us with Mr. Chatterjee as well as other key actors, thus becoming in many ways a lens through which the situation manifested itself. A slightly conflictive element lies in the fact that SPARC has a significant presence within this context, requiring that their existence receive the same critical attention given to another. What became important for our work was the balancing of our own evolving perceptions as outsiders and temporary ‘partners’ alongside their experienced position - working through known compromises and levels of bureaucratic rigidity in order to achieve a holistic view. A major element in reaching the latter resides in recognising the various degrees by which people and organisations measure success. Resulting from our case study research of the in-situ redevelopment projects we acknowledge our own critical gauge of the level of their success. Did they appropriately address the needs and desires of individuals as transition took place? This opinion, much like our independent perceptions, contrasts with that of SPARC, coming to light during our conversations with Sheela Patel, whose stated selfdesignated capacities attempted to offer explanations in regard to decisions, outcomes, and future plans. Simultaneously, we realised the contrasting measure of success as gauged by MHADA and MCGM. Coming to terms with these differing opinions in our own minds, we formed a critical view towards a need to redefine means of success in relation to an actor’s future capacity.
7.1 Critical Perceptions Recognising that our introduction and research into the case of Dharavi was initiated remotely in London, heavily based on literature reviews, lectures and media presentations, the idea of questioning critical perceptions carries a two-fold nature. First, the stereotypical images and definitions used to represent ‘slums’ are, at best, criminally one-sided, making it very difficult to actually comprehend the essence of an area under question without setting foot on the ground. While the expected squalor, sub-standard infrastructure conditions and overcrowding exists, also revealed is a lively, adaptive, resilient community driven by fruitful assets of human and economic capital. Thus our conceptual understanding of ‘slum’ is/was called into evolving question.
Equally fundamental in terms of general perception lay the character and relationship dynamics between key actors. In this case, pre-trip actor mapping was carried out to provide a basis for our understanding of the context. While the initial links and ideals of the individual actors remained relatively consistent, the revelations uncovered during our meetings in terms of divergent visions, motivations and concerns had a significant effect on our daily reflections and understandings. The influence that an individual can have on the institution or organisation they represent, and thus on the subsequent unfolding of a situation, an important variable to be acknowledged. For example, Gautam Chatterjee’s reign at the helm of MHADA has seen the appointment of an Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP, illustrating some degree of desire for inclusive representation in discussing
080 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
7.2 Balancing the Real and Academic Our presence in Mumbai was one of evolving duality. There we found ourselves thrust into what we have referred to as a conflictive environment, which is shockingly real and heavily debated the world over, but also magnified on the ground within Dharavi. Like two sides of a coin we were both an academic institution bringing with it strong concepts of theoretical study, and in an instance, professionals with expected capacity to envision change. The exposure to realities of sacrificial negotiation compounded as we attempted to deliver a ‘real’, practical solution within a determined policy and typological framework. As seen in Scenario 1, we conceded to the guidelines of the DRP, while asserting critical responsive alternatives in regards to the transformation of social well-being and livelihoods. Relating directly to our analysis, we questioned the scenario largely based on a planning driven initiative for the whole of Dharavi. Working with certain established policy provisions, this scenario departed dramatically from the current DRP, especially in terms of physical typology and the five sector parcel zoning. It also critically addressed policy guidelines and strategic processes of participation under the same vision as Scenario 1. The basis for working through this second
scenario stemmed directly from the theoretical concepts and methodology related to prior projects undertaken throughout the BUDD course, working within a greater room for manoeuvre and the edge of academic freedom. The concept of duality as witnessed in the nature of our existence in Mumbai, and represented appropriately in our complementing scenarios, calls to mind the question of the practitioner’s role. Practitioners bring with them a knowledge capacity formed, in our case, by academic training and situational experience. Fundamental to the practitioner’s cause is their ability to apply restraint under the notion that each situation is unique and requires a level of initial debriefing. Finding ourselves within a new, complex environment, full of challenge and cultural exchange, sparked reality checks and questioning of value systems. It was imperative for us to stay grounded and observe the situation and the ‘checks and balances’ therein - what is there, what is not there. In order to achieve the goals we set for ourselves, much attention was given to deciphering the feedback mechanisms in place and how we could position ourselves within them. Fortunately, in many cases, our presence was respectfully regarded and rarely called into critical question. It was important for us to then use this allowance and platform to understand our role in offering a truly valuable contribution that enriches lives and on a larger scale and illustrates alternative solutions for the transformation of Dharavi. 7.3 Beyond Mumbai - Conceptualizing Place and its Future The previous arguments regarding professional field experience, the academic realm and how that relates to the role of practitioner, illustrate a needed balance in order to maintain a high standard of reflection and implementation. For if one dismisses theoretical methodology in favour of mere respect for the uniqueness of place, a valuable opportunity may be missed and standards may be affected. It is possible the same idea could then be applied when conceptualising a situation or place. As it stands now, Mumbai and Dharavi have lived under a microscope of analysis and study since the early 1990s. The multitude of institutions, organisations and professionals offering services and producing alternative visions amplifies daily. In fact, our visit marks the fourth consecutive year the Development Planning Unit has conducted research in the city. It can easily be said that Dharavi is in itself becoming a concept resource model, representing contested urbanism and the general subject of slum upgrading and redevelopment. Just as Los Angeles and Las Vegas have become urban ideologies, through Mike Davis’s City of Quartz and Venturi’s Learning from Las Vegas, so too has Mumbai (Dharavi) become an international breeding ground for
debate and research. This argument also manifests in the recent release of the film Slumdog Millionaire, where a world audience now has a hyper image mechanism and conversation piece to attach with the concept of slum and the city of Mumbai. Despite Dharavi’s fertility in containing the complexities and contradictions that appeal to professionals and academics alike, we must not forget that it is a living, breathing place without the fantastic nature and allure of Los Angeles or the stylized adult playground of Las Vegas. The truth of Dharavi lies in its extreme situation of conflict. Its appeal as a resource parallels the struggles of daily survival, the necessity for attention and solutions that can humanise conditions that are anything but. This report clearly illustrates there is much more to Dharavi than its poverty stricken conditions, as it flourishes with economic richness, communal and family oriented networks and traditions, which breathe and sustain a diversity of life into the area. In this case is Dharavi underrepresented? Do those who have spent their time and energy in using the area as a resource really understand the totality of place or have they picked upon the tragic complexities in order to justify a grandiose urban vision? In response to this, again we assert that an appropriate balance needs to be achieved in order to inform both experience and subsequent proposals that will lead to inclusive transformative outcomes for individuals and the city as a whole. The questions we ask here, in light of the declared desire for Mumbai to reach ‘world class city’ status, hark back to our stated conceptual framework criteria and vision. As the DRP takes a lead role in the transformation of Dharavi, are the correct priorities being set in place regarding the diversity of its citizens and livelihoods? Do the policy processes that regulate social transition and physical manifestation allow for flexibility and adaptation over time? Does the ‘world class city’ vision align with historical trends, current realities, and future predictions? At present there seems to be great disjunction between grand expectations and acknowledged reality. The two scenarios we have proposed strive to bridge these stated expectations with the realities of daily social and economic activity. By addressing policy implications alongside basic necessities for sustaining and transforming community and livelihoods within a strategically planned urban landscape, we foretell the establishing of Dharavi as a pulsating heart of Mumbai, rather than an area branded with informality and poverty, whose future is determined in regards to land value and market trends alone. The character of Dharavi, as we have illustrated, is much more powerful than that. REFERENCES
Davis Mike, 2006. City of quartz: excavating the future in Los Angeles. Verso Books. Venturi et al. 1977. Learning from Las Vegas: the forgotten symbolism of architectural form. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 081
Rajiv indira & Bharat janata
Locating Home-based activities Manufacturing activities Retail activities
Rajiv Indira & Bharat Janata
How long have you lived in Dharavi? (Before moving to new tenement) What is the size of the family living together in this household? Tell us about your typical day. Where did you live originally in Dharavi? How long did you live in transit camp? What was it like living in transit camp? Have you kept relationship with previous neighbours after rehabilitation? And with the broader community of Dharavi? What do you like most about living here? What do you like the least? What do you do now? Who supports the household? Has the move affected this? How did you become aware of the Bharat Janata/Rajiv Indira rehabilitation process? Were you involved in the design process of the units? How? (Establish level of participation) How has the new home met your needs compared to your last home? (Meeting expectations) Do you have more or less space than you originally had? Have you been able to adapt the space to meet your needs? Did you rent a room where you lived before? How did you decide where you live, which floorlocation? (Understand power dynamics and diversityspace relationship) Do you make use of the communal spaces? Are they adequate for your communal needs? Where do the children go to school? Where do they play after school? How do you feel living in a high-rise building? How do you move into Dharavi and outside? Where do/es the earner/s in the home work? How did the move affect this? (Unpack this spatially – where raw materials are from) Have you heard about redevelopment plans for Dharavi? If yes, what do you think about the plan? If no, what do you think should change in Dharavi? Thank you for your time. Do you have some questions for us?
Interview profile 01
Ground floor, flat #3
Approximate age: 35-40 years old Household size: 5 (Hariharan, wife and three kids) Years in Dharavi: 20 Work activities: vegetable seller in Neta Nagar,
Spatial experience /use
Lived in 200 sq. ft. one storey hut before. Would have expanded home if in huts: need more space now as kids are older. Mezzanine largely used as storage, sometimes kids study there.
No, 11 people (members of the society committee) made the decisions, they had 4 meetings to discuss the building. Hariharan knew they would get 10x12 feet space, didn’t feel right to ask for more, felt they were getting a lot.
Sketches Community relationship
No change. More space before for kids to play before – not much open space in Rajiv Indira. Now play in open space nearby or at school.
Like most / like least
Society gives order, maintenance, discipline. Cleaner and more convenient, don’t have to collect water. / Should not hunt for problems; feels fortunate to have what he has.
Interview profile 02
First floor, flat #102
MRS. SAFI CUN NIZAM
Approximate age: 50s Household size: 7 (husband, sons, daughter-in-law, child) Years in Dharavi: 55 years, originally from Alahabad Work activities: Son is a tailor in Kutiwari
Spatial experience /use
Previous house was bigger, 10 people lived there. Had a large open space outside, ex-tended space of the house. Relatives often stayed and worked in Dharavi, slept in this area. It was part of a la rger area, part of which was shared communal space.
Design plans were prepared, society members did not have to provide their opinions. Builder promised to remove the slums, they did this. They showed the community the plans, the community didn’t have input, they were happy with what they were getting.
Not much change. Still well connected, when people have problems they all come together.
Like most / like least
Less quarrels, more private space. Before they had more open space, more room – here they are more restricted.
Interview profile 03
Approximate age: 40s Household size: 5 (Wife, two sons, one daughter) Years in Dharavi: 40, before came from Tamil Nadu Work activities: home based potato vadha makers
Spatial experi ence /use
Half flat was full of potato and veg., space organised according to chain of production. Have more space now, able to have equipment. Aspiration of son is to have own shop.
Family was one of 20 project affected peoples relocated to Rajiv Indira. They were not involved in the building design.
Sketches Community relationship
No problems with neigh-bours. Nothing changed. No communal space, always working, do not meet with others in building.
Like most / like least
Less quarrels, more private space. Before they had more open space, more room – here they are more restricted.
Interview profile 04
Fourth floor, 421
MRS. VENI NAIDOO
Approximate age: 60 - 70 years old Household size: 6 (husband, son, daughters, grandchild) Years in Dharavi: 20, originally from Andhra Pradesh Work activities: Husband and son are tailors
Spatial experi ence /use
More space than before, but quite unhappy not to have the loft space - not aware they wouldn’t have this. When son gets married will have to move out as there is not enough space, but cannot afford rent.
Husband spoke with the community leader, Veni does not know about this. They had little involvement in the process, they were only entitled to a flat.
The house is better but the community life is totally different than before. The relationship between us was much easier, people’s doors were always open and we saw each other every day. Now doors locked, people live more in their own houses.
Like most / like least
Unhappy not to have the mezzanine space
Interview profile 05
First floor, flat #109
Approximate age: mid 20s Household size: 4 (husband, daughter, in-law’s child) Years in Dharavi: 20+, originally from Tamil Nadu Work activities: husband is a baggage handler at aeroport
Spatial experience /use
Have more space and a better division of it here. Before used to cook in front of guests, now has kitchen. Drying clothes used to drip on top of them. Mezzanine space used mostly as storage area, for guests and for kids to sleep if sick.
Mostly men doing this, husband told her about what was discussed: size of flats and 14 ft ceilings. Given plan, shown drawings, didn’t find any issues of concern. Meetings were held on Sundays so men ended up going to them.
Sketches Community relationship
Has maintained contact with friends / neighbours. Normal gathering space they have is not enough when it is time for festivals and celebrations. Go to temples instead when they need a big space, but would prefer to have space in Rajiv Indira.
Like most / like least
Likes the high ceilings the most, much cleaner. Could be a bit bigger.
Interview profile 06
Approximate age: early 20s Household size: 6 (mother, 3 brothers, sister-in-law, son) Years in Dharavi: 15 years Work activities: making plastic bags, husband loads leather on/off trucks in Dharavi, mother brother works at a bank packages school bags, one
Spatial experience /use
Flat is bigger than what they used to have. They redid did the tiling when they got the flat. The walls were bare and needed a lot of work.
Mother used to go to the meetings discussing the Bharat Janata housing. She had the option to either accept the flat free of cost, or alternately, accept a financial compensation.
Likes living in the huts more than the building; they had more freedom before. For example, kids could play anywhere and the space outside was part of their homes. As the brother lost contact with all his friends from the huts, he also feels like it was better before when they wre all together.
Like most / like least
Mother and brothers prefer living in the flat. They have a sense of peace as the house is theirs. They can’t think of anything in particular that is bad abour BJ.
Interview profile 07
Mr FRANCIS & Mrs BASTIME
Approximate age: early 40s Household size: 4 (18yr old sun + 10yr old daughter) Years in Dharavi: 20-25 years Work activities: Francis, mechanical driver in Worli. Bastime, housekeeper in Mahim
Spatial experience /use
Francis: he is happy with the new home. Lots of trouble in the hut. Bastime: she has less space than before, she had two rooms before.
Francis is part of cooperative society commitee. He saw the plan, agreed to 225 ft2. Did not talk to architect. “Community should tell builder what they want but the community needs to be strong (organised)” Francis
Francis. They kept good relations. Bastime has an appointment with the other women living in the building at 6 o’clock everyday on the ground floor to meet and chat. Children play in the ground floor.
Like most / like least
Bastime Like most: utilities, particularly tap water. Like the least: the quality of construction materials (degradation of the wall in the bathroom and kitchen).
Interview profile 08
Approximate age: early 40s Household size: 5 (mother, father, 1 son, 2 daughters) Years in Dharavi: 28 years Work activities: Husband, building watchman in Mahim Mrs Panwasi + daughter, production small plastic bags and harinets.
Spatial experi ence /use
Got more of less what they were promised. Have more space than before. Before they lived with uncle’s family, now they have their own space. It is nice to live in the building.
Husband/father told them about the BJ buildings. Not really involved in the process. Took a long time, 12 years ago they started talking about it.
Punuwasi and childrens meets friends downstairs, on ground floor. They have friends also around Dharavi. They meet at people’s houses/huts.
Like most / like least
Like the most: Punuwasi says everyone has own space, so no fights anymore People stay in their house, live by society rules. Don’t have water problems like before. Son would like a space to play cricket. He does not like the poor quality of building.
Interview profile 09
Mrs Razia Akbar
Approximate age: early 40s Household size: 5 (husband, 2 daughters, 1 son) Years in Dharavi: 20 Work activities: husband works as taxi driver
Spatial experience /use
Water does not come every day as promised. She uses the tank when there is no water from tap. Flat is about four times smaller than what they used to have before. Father and mother-in-law lived in the house.
Before society was founded, didn’t have a role to play. Mostly Razia’s father-in-law and husband were involved in the BJ building process. She didn’t go to any meetings and never saw the plans. Razia knew there was only 225 square feet so she was not expecting anything more.
Relationships haven’t changed much. that they can use. Kids play in corridor with the neighbouring kids. Friends come to their home as there is no specific public/open space
Like most / like least
She feels happier staying in the building. It is much better than living in the huts they used to have prior to moving to Bharat Janata
Interview profile 10
Like most / like least
Relations in the community was better before, but here the house is better. Much better staying here, used to have flooding with the rain, now much more comfortable. Environment is quiet, not too much noise.
Approximate age: early 40s Household size: 3 (1 daughter, 23 yrs old, 1 son, 17 yrs old) Years in Dharavi: 30 years Work activities: Daughter used to work in a courier office, since father died, 10 months ago, she has stopped working Father used to work in railways.
Spatial experi ence /use
The space is about the same as the one they had before but is divided differently; their previous house had 2 rooms. Upgrated their flat: tiled floors, walls and kitchen, all done very nicely, for the cost of 1.5 lakhs. When they got the house, cement/mud was falling off. .
Husband was a member of the society committee, Shanam got informed on the process through him. Building was due to be built almost 15 years back. They were shown the plans but did not direclty participate to the design process. Promised a marriage hall, different spaces for religious activities, other spaces for specific functions – none of this was manifested in the final product.
Daughter: Liked living in transit camp as there was a sense of community there. In BJ, society rule disallows religious practice outside the home; they were given the building and house, but not their vital social network. Before, living in the huts, they had more open and communal spaces. Every evening around 6pm Shanam goes downstairs, to ground floor of BJ, where she gathers with the other women to socialize.
Interview profile 11
Approximate age: MID 40s Household size: 56 people liv and work in flat Years in Dharavi: 28 years Work activities: home based activity (textile design; handiwork embroidery
Spatial experience /use
Interviewee used to have twice the space; same floor area but in a two storey building. To maximize usage of space, no furniture is kept in the house, the wooden panes are set up across the room and the panels are removed at night to sleep on the floor.
Not involved in design.
Relationship change: people who used to live immediately around Samsuddin in the huts have been relocated throughout the city. Social relations have been affected; his neighbours are not people he knew before. If has time to socialize, he goes to his friend’s houses whom are involved with the same type of work as he is.
Like most / like least
He is satisfied with his current arrangement as the current work space is of better quality than the old one (well ventilated and provides basic amenities. )
Interview profile 12
Mrs Devar Kripa
Approximate age: early 40s Household size: 4 (hsband, son and son’s wife) Years in Dharavi: 34 years Work activities: Vegetable seller, Husband is watchman
Spatial experi ence /use
Water shortage is a problem. They have a tank, but when it empties out, they have to go collect water and carry it up to the flat. Had a very small house before, much smaller than the one they have now.
Not involved in the design. When they were living in the hut, they felt like moving to a building was going to be a great improvement.
Prior to the move, they had been together for a long time, and were happy with their relation with neighbours. Now in BJ, no one asks what is happening, people live inside their house, they keep doors closed.
Like most / like least
Now they live in the building and are happy. But feel that there is not enough open space. The walls of building are of poor quality. The space they got is too small for their extended family.
What would you change about your house to help your business? Do your neighbours help you with your business? Do the other members of your family work with you? Do you have workers and do they live here too? Have you expanded your house over time to help you with your business? How do you sell your items? What are your plans for your children? Will they take over your business when they grow up? Is the economic activity limited by restricted service provision? Would more water or electrical provision expand the business or change the type of business? For how many generations has your family been involved in this type of business? What are your thoughts and expectations of the DRP?
Interview profile 13
Drum maker [family]
14 people in the house (it is a joint family) He has 5 brothers 2 women, 4 men present during our interview They’ve been there for 60-70 years / 3 generations
His house was a double-height space (one room) He needs more space, and wants a separate workshop space. He would add another floor but he has no permission to do that existing propositions for the site
The drum-making requires great skill All members of the family help with the business It takes 3-4 days to make a drum He gets Rs. 3,000 for one drum He sells the drums all across the coast of India but he doesn’t have a license to so this himself 400-500 pieces per month is the maximum production (depending on the order)
If he moves, he thinks his business will stop and he will lose his network of customers He has a sense of place and belonging here, he was quite emotional about the DRP and moving
Interview profile 14
7 person live in house All relatives live around Rented from a family member Will be moving soon because they cannot afford the rent
Room was used as restaurant seating area and cooking place and storage and in the night everyone slept there.
He sells food to the residents live in the community. He also sets up his stall outside the room and sells the food. The other renters work in Dharavi and also outside.
He told us DRP will not affect him because he is renting. Seemed indiffrent.
Interview profile 15
Sewing workshop [family]
7 person live in house All relatives live around Rented from a family member Will be moving soon because they cannot afford the rent
Prefer to meet friends inside house Outside is used for dishwashing and laundry Could make great use of a second small room, for work
Small beads on bottom of pajama pants Receive pants already made. Add beads. Returns the pants with the beads on. - 2rs per piece - 20 pieces per day Need very minimal space to do this. Mainly done by hand stitching
Prefer house to high rise. Seems to be because they are so strongly anchored in their community.
Interview profile 16
Day care centre
4 person live in room: teacher, her husband and her 2 sons. Her room is big and has a kitchen inside. Outside is a typical narrow alley. Many kids around us during the interview.
She seemed to have quite a large house with refrigerator, freezer, computer and other amenities. Outside space is not used.
She teaches in Hindi & English. She has 25-30 kids that she watches. Her husband is a taxi driver.
She thinks a high-rise is better. She would keep her daycare since she had it for 20 years.
How many people work here? Do they live in Dharavi? If yes, where. What is their average income? What is their daily schedule? How many working hours? How many shifts per day? Is there any federation amongst the workers? Is the location important for the business? Is the owner renting the place or not? Can the business be relocated in another place? What are the different phases of production? What is the daily, monthly and weekly production? Do the raw materials come from Dharavi? How the delivery process is being made? Are the goods sold in Dharavi or not? How much do they sell the goods? What are their personal aspirations in terms of their businesses? Do they want to change something in terms of the space they use within the commercial units? Do they know about DRP? What they think about it? Are they willing to go somewhere else?
Interview profile 17
Different traders within Dharavi. He contacts several manufactures to bring the material from different states. One state is at the centre of Dharavi. The oil comes from Gujarat (West).
Space & Livelihoods
Process of production: Store flour on the ground (do not use substantive material). Mix flour with butter in the machine and then bake the paste on the oven for 4 hours. The bakery is open 24 hours a day. 12 people work there in two shifts. The manager takes a break for 6 hours and sleeps in the bakery. They come from 2 different states apart from Maharastra. They normally work for 4 - 5 months and go back to their families for 2 months and come again back. They don’t have bank holidays.
He doesn’t want to leave from Chambra Bazaar
Interview profile 18
Treasurer of Pottery Society
Retail shops in Dharavi as part of Mumbai, whole sale throughout Maharashtra state and beyond. (local, state, nation).
Space & Livelihoods
Family oriented enterprise with long traditions Children are schooled and became doctors, architects etc. Workspace is generally part of house interior VLT – Vacant Land Tenancy
Self-designated cluster unit plan, 1998 Reject the DRP Have held talks, shown proposals for own (self ) redevelopment in terms of livelihoods etc.
Interview profile 19
Store bag-luggage manufacture
No network - individual Material: from Dharavi Products go to central Mumbai and then to suburb area
Space & Livelihoods
Family business, second generation, since 1965 Process: all the phases of production at the place 4 people, migrated Residence: the 4 workers work 11 hours and sleep at the working area.
The owner has his own tenure so he can get one store and his aspiration is on ground floor shop and upper floor residence.
Interview profile 20
Total 5 – 6 leather industries in Dharavi. Deliver to different places (Kolkata, Chennai). Products: Nothing stays in Dharavi (industrial safety belts, military shoes). They export mostly in Europe. The buffalo comes from Western Maharastra (Deonar) No federation. No network. The tanning in Chennai. Tracks are coming from Chennai. In Dharavi the materials are ready. It’s a fashion industry business which exports nationally and internationally (British, Germany, Emirates).
Space & Livelihoods
He exports leather products, as there is no future to skin. Accessibility: Delivery by tracks. They load directly outside the store. Storage on the ground floor.
“I will be very happy for the redevelopment plan. If I have a good place for my business I want to stay. Change has to come. But here people are attached emotionally with each other. They don’t want to leave. They have everything here and their happy. But change must happen. The airport is very close, the road. For me it’s the best place to work but if I cannot stay I’m willing to negotiate for a good place. We are preparing for this. We have to train the people. To make them have skills”.
How long have you worked in Dharavi? Where are your from? Why did you leave that place and chose to move to Dharavi? What do you do for a living? How many people work with/under you? Do you own or rent the house? What would you change about your shop to help you business? Where do your workers live or work? Do any of your family members work with you? Can you walk us through your typical day/ night and explain if/ when/ how you use the workshop and Shop? Have you expanded you shop over time to help you with your Business? How do you get and sell your items? How does the network work (if there is one)/who are your customers? What are you future plans for your children? Will they take over your business? Are you a member of any organization?If so why did you join it?How often do you meet? What do you know about the DRP? How do you feel about it? Do you know anyone shifted to in the buildings from Dharavi? Can you continue your work in a high rise building? Why would you like to change in your life or of your children if given a chance in future? Would you like to ask us anything?
Interview profile 21
[President of Dharavi Gold Association]
Depends on local network to buy and sell gold President of Dharavi Gold Association
3 – 6 male workers.
Owner of the shop since 1990 All Shopkeepers Associations did not protect them from the dispute thus starting the Dharavi Gold Association Problem with the authenticity of the gold leading to police disputes. Meets 2-3 times every year. 7 member committee reporting to him. Part of the Save Dharavi Movement.
Interview profile 22
Supplies to Dadar Market in Mumbai by train or taxi twice a month
Peak season 25 workers; off peak 6 works. Sleeps in the same workshop Takes 5 hours to make one piece
Came to Dharavi 10 months ago In a rented workshop of the first floor of the building Do not belong to any union Wife and kids lived in Dharavi for 2 months. Could not adapt so they moved back.
Interview profile 23
Biscuits exported outside of Dharavi Sold locally. Biscuits transported by bikes then trucks would then take them all over India. Raw materials delivered once a month from various parts of India (flour from Goregeon).
Migrant workers lives in the dormitory space within the bakery cluster. Works there for 8-10 months, goes back to the village for 2 months, then comes back works in 2 shifts (day and night shift). More people in the day shift than the night shift. Factory runs for 24 hours.
Initially more than 1 bakery but has to sell them off Sold them off for the leather and garment business Son joined his business.
Interview profile 24
Clients in Dharavi. Does not need more enough clients as is. Part of a SRA group who meets 3-4 times.
Works on her own. A home base economic activity.
Only does women’s clothing Does beading/ stitching as well. Beading needs special device. Stitched before marriage. Lived in a village before coming to Pune. Husband is a cobbler. Not aware of the DRP. Would like the main road to be developed. Not worried because she will get ground commercial space since she got license
Ti hr d
ht:w wb d s mu abo so. m t / w . di mb il p to p/ u n . g c
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.