Dharavi: a case of contested urbanism

Participants May 2009 Master o Science in Building and Urban Design in Development (2008 – 2009) Development Planning Unit University College London

Members o Faculty

Nationality

Dr. Camillo Boano

Italy

Isis P Nuñez Ferrera

Honduras

Students Mike Wai-Hou Chan

Hong Kong

Laura Colloridi

Italy

Debeshi Chakraborty

India

Barbara Dovarch

Italy

Melissa Garcia Lamarca

Canada

William Hunter

United States o America

Su-Eun Jung

South Korea

Benjamin Leclair-Paquet

Canada

Xiaolu Li

China

Phirany Lim


Gynna Millan Franco

Colombia

Kelvin Naidoo

South Arica

Hye-Joo Park

Korea

Nota Syrrothanasi

Greece

Pooja Varma

India

Andrew Wade


Participants Table o Contents Image index Acronyms Acknowledgements Executive summary

01 Chapter Introduction

006

1.1 Locating Mumbai: A World Class City? City? 1.2 Dharavi: The Heart Heart o Contested Contested Urbanism 1.3 Terms o Reerence 1.4 Theoretical Framework 1.5 Vision

02 Chapter Methodology

013

2.1 The Process 2.2 Asumptions and Limitations Limitations

03 Chapter Towards the Dharavi Redevelopment Project? 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Governme nt Policy Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums Enter the Dharavi Dharavi Redevelopment Project Policy Comparisons Comparisons and Critique Critique Physical Proposals Proposals and Critiques Contested Visions o the DRP Conclusions

04 Chapter Current Reality in Dharavi: Analysis and Emerging Issues

028

4.1 Context, Scope and Framework Framework or Analysis Analysis 4.2 Experienced Impact on Livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira 4.3 Urban Analysis o Chambra Baazar 4.4 Anticipated Impact o In-Situ Redevelopment Redevelopment in Chambra Baazar 4.5 Summary o Analysis and Finding: Finding: Moving into the Scenarios

05 Chapter Bridging the Gap : Rationale for the Scenarios

048

06 Chapter The Scenarios

078

018

6.1 Scenario 1: Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Redevelopment Plan 6.2 Scenario 2: BUDD Proposal: Towards an Alternat Alternative ive Vision

IMAGE INDEX 01 Chapter 1.1

map o Greater Mumbai

1.2

map o Dharavi

1.3

photo o DRP proposal sketch rom Mumbai Mirror

1.4

images o negotiating the change rom hutment dweller to tenement dweller

1.5

diagram o actor pressures (adapted rom Pieterse 2003)

03 Chapter 3.1

gure o evolution o government approach to slums

3.2

photo o present Mumbai by Chirodeep Chaudhuri

3.3

photo o present Mumbai by Chirodeep Chaudhuri

3.4

images o DRP transormation in Dharavi

3.5

map o the 5 sectors by Mehta

3.6

image o DRP proposed podium typology rom Mumbai Mirror

3.7

diagram o transormation process o Indian cities towards a world class city

04 Chapter 4.1

example analysis diagram- issue criteria vs core analytical concepts

4.2

Map showing Rajiv Indira location within Dharavi area

4.3

Map showing Bharat Janata location within Dharavi area

4.4

Images showing commercial activity scenes with current plan location and corresponding analytical

diagram 4.5

Images showing larger-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram.

4.6

Images showing small-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram.

4.7

Images showing the physical layout o interaction space in the previous and the current situation

and corre-

sponding analytical diagram 4.8

Images showing the quality o communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) and

corresponding an-

alytical diagram 4.9

Images showi showing ng the use o commu communal nal space aroun around d the buildi building ng (Bhara (Bharatt Janata) with curre current nt plan l o c a t i o n

and corresponding analytical diagram 4.10

Images showi showing ng the use o commu communal nal space aroun around d the buildi building ng (Rajiv Indira Indira)) with curre current nt plan

location

and corresponding analytical diagram 4.11

Interview photos (with the community leader o Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram

surrounding the question o participation in design 4.12a

map showing Dharavi development in 1933

4.12b


4.12c


4.13

major road linkages throughout Dharavi

4.14

land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar

4.15a

photos showing use o open space

4.15b

sketch illustrating activities around shared open space

4.16

diagram showing production chain at various geographical scales

4.17a

photos showing various scales o commercial enterprise

4.17b

analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (enterprise activity)

4.18a

photo showing live/work space (migrant workers)

4.18b

analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (live/work tenements)

4.19a

photos o home-based activities (and their location) within Chambda Bazaar (map) (map)

4.20a

interview photos- dierent scale home-based commercial activities

4.20b

analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (home-based work) work)

4.21a

photos showing diversity o open space- commercial/residential

4.21b

analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (diverse (diverse spatial use)

05 Chapter 5.1

diagram o setting the scenario

06 Chapter 6.1

Diagram showing the varying degrees o participation

6.2

Image illustrating the exclusionary nature o the DRP

6.3

Image illustrating means o design communication

6.4

Diagram showing mulit-actor participation

6.5

Image showing the proposed monolithic typology o the DRP

6.6

Photographs o livelihood prole in Rajiv Indira, Unit 005

6.7


6.8


6.9

Diagram showing possibility or expansion under the DRP

6.10

Diagram o options to purchase additional space

6.11

Diagram o enabling spatial proposals

6.12

Conceptual proposals map

6.13

Table o Development Strategy Schema

6.14

Diagram illustrating process o community involvement

6.15

Poster o layout options

6.16

Urban density map

6.17

Photograph o current situation (home-based units)

6.18

Diagram o proposed space-use arrangement

6.19

Place-Policy Matrix (home-based units)

6.20

Illustration o migrants’ use o space

6.21

Illustration o production networks

6.22

Diagram showing the separation o spatial uses

6.23

Place-Policy Matrix (work-based units)

6.24

Diagram o current situation

6.25

Diagram o proposed arrangement (rehabilitation high-rise)

6.26

Place-Policy Matrix (rehabilitation high-rise)

6.27

Photographs o current situation (Bandra-Kurla Complex)

6.28

Diagram o proposed arrangement (private sector high-rise)

6.29

Place-Policy Matrix (private sector high-rise)

ACRONYMS

Community-Led Inrastructure Financing Facility

CLIFF

Dharavi Redevelopment Project

DRP

Expoert Advisory Committee

EAC

Floor Space Index

FSI

Government o Maharashtra

GoM

Housing Development & Inrastructure Limited

HDIL

Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute or Architecture

KRVIA

Municipal Corporation o Greater Mumbai

MCGM

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

MHADA

Mumbai Municipal Corporation

MMC

Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

MMRDA

National Slum Dwellers D wellers Federation

NSDF

Slum Rehabilitation Authority

SRA

Society or the Promotion o Area Resource Centres

SPARC

Transerable Transer able Development Rights

TDR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank many people that have

Many thanks go to the women o Mahila Milan, es-

contributed and given invaluable support to this work.

pecially Prema, our acilitators rom SPARC, namely Lo-

First and oremost, we would like to thank the Society

pez ,Lopez, Sharmila and Katia, and our KRVIA contacts,

or the Promotion o Area Resource Centres (SPARC) and

specically Neelima, Rutwick, Amruyta and Siddhartha,

the Kamala Raheja Vidhyanidhi Institute o Architecture

as well as Rochit, who all went to great lengths to acili-

(KRVIA) or their constant guidance and hospitality dur-

tate our eldwork. Your help in navigating Dharavi was

ing our stay in Mumbai. The ollowing people have been

invaluable.

particularly supportive o this work: Mrs. Sheela Patel, Director o SPARC; Mr. Sundar Burra, Advisor to SPARC;

Additionally we would like to thank all our tutors

Aseena Viccajee, Systems Manager o SPARC and SSNS;

at the Development Planning Unit, University College

Mr. Anirudh Paul, Director o KRVIA and Ms. Benita Me-

London, or their guidance throughout this academic

nezes o KRVIA.

year, with special reerence to Dr. Camillo Boano, Director o the MSc in Building and Urban Design in Develop-

Furthermore, we would like to thank several people

ment course, or his constant encouragement, support

who contributed to this work through their presenta-

and guidance. We would also like to thank the BUDD

tions and the meetings we had with them: Mr. A. Jockin,

Course Coordinator Isis P Nunez Ferrera or her ruitul

President o National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF);

discussions, suggestions and constructive critiques.

Mr. Gautam Chatterjee, Vice President and Chie Executive Ocer o MHADA, and Ocer on Special Duty or

Finally, we would like to express our deep grati-

the Dharavi Redevelopment Project; Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, Mhaisk ar,

tude to the people o Dharavi, who were always eager

Project Director (MUTP) and Metropolitan Commission-

to open their houses and shops, sharing with us their

er o MMRDA; Mr. U.P.S. Madan, Project Manager o the

aspirations and demonstrating the strength o their

Mumbai Transormation Transormation Support Unit; Mr. S.K. Joshi Ad-

community.

visor to SP SPARC; ARC; Ms. Kalpana Sharma, author and journalist; Ms. Neera Adarkar, architect and activist and P.K. Das, architect and activist.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Presentation This report was produced by the students o the MSc

Key Findings The Dharavi Redevelopment Project

Building and Urban Design in Development (BUDD)

In order to satisy Mumbai’s intent to become a

course at the Development Planning Unit (DPU) o The

‘World Class City’, the municipal government has

Bartlett Faculty o the Built Environment at University

established objectives that are to be met through a

College London London (UCL). It is the product o an extensive

series o major urban inrastructure and redevelopment

six-week programme that included three weeks o

projects, hand in hand with a drive towards the vision

eldwork and interviews with major stakeholders and

o a ‘slum ree’ city. Through a state acilitated acilita ted Public-

actors, alongside lectures and a comprehensive literature literature

Private Partnership (PPP), the architect Mukesh Mehta

review. The purpose o the study was to understand

and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development

the complex and oten conficting interrelationship

Authority (MHADA) have developed the DRP, which is

between livelihoods, policy and space in Dharavi,

in essence a tabula-rasa redevelopment strategy or

Mumbai. The specic sites o study were two buildings

the entire territory o Dharavi.

o rehabilitated ‘slum ‘slum dwellers’ – Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira – and Chambda Baazar, an area characterised

Its key characteristics are:

by minimal high-rise development and signicant

•

commercial and home-based economic activity.

redeveloped by ve developers; •

Dividing Dharavi into ve sect cto ors, to be Increasing density by setting a Floor

Ater an introduction to the contexts o Mumbai

Space Index (FSI) o our as a regulatory tool,

and Dharavi, the report outlines the policy context and

as compared to two and a hal in the rest o

the current masterplan being pursued by the Dharavi

Mumbai;

Redevelopment Project (DRP). Based on eldwork and

•

analysis, ndings are then presented in regards to the

consisting o a three-storey podium with high-

experienced impact on livelihoods on rehabilitated

rise building above.

‘slum dwellers’ in moving rom hutments to buildings

•

in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira, and the anticipated

commodication o Transerable Development

impact o such urban transormation in Chambda

Rights (TDR) in a Public-Private Partnership.

Bazaar. Two Scenarios are then presented, the rst o

•

which proposes adjustments within the parameters

or all residents currently living in Dharavi and

o the current DRP, and the second which proposes an

listed in the census o 1 January, 2000.

alternative redevelopment strategy.

002 DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism

Adop Ad opti ting nga ane new wsi sing ngul ular art typo ypolo logy gyso solu luti tion on

Fina Fi nanc ncin ingth gthro roug ughcr hcros osss ssub ubsi sidi disa sati tion onand and

Allo Al loca cati ting ng30 300s 0squ quar aref efoo oota tats tsatn atnoc ocos ost t

Analysis o experienced and anticipated impact on

especially among women and children. The

livelihoods

importance o the exterior/public environment

Findings that emerged rom the analysis o eld

in terms o providing space or socialising is not

observations and numerous semi-structured interviews

recognised in policy, in terms o multiplicity o

clearly illustrate that the people o Dharavi should not

unctions nor necessary quality o space.

be perceived as a homogenous group, but rather an

•

extremely diverse conglomeration o sub- groups.

involvement in the building design process,

A ew highlighted key ndings, as ltered through the analytical concepts o policy, livelihoods and

SRA policy does not consider people’s

undamental to identiy people’s multiplicity o use o space and diversity o requirements.

space and the our criteria orming the theoretical ramework - namely diversity, adaptability, fexibility

Anticipated impacts in Chambda Bazaar

and multiplicity, show:

•

Comm Co mmer erci cial alacti activi viti ties eshav haveth ethri rive vedbe dbeca caus use e

o their fexibility, diversity, adaptability and Experienced impacts in Bharat Janata and Rajiv

multiplicity in the present inormal situation,

Indira

oten connected to larger chains o production in

•

India and internationally. Such characteristics are

The cu curr rren entSl tSlum umReh Rehab abil ilit itat atio ionAc nAct(S t(SRA RA))

creates a trade o or owners o both commercial

not given due recognition in policy.

units and residential space located in the same

•

structure to choose between one or the other,

upon migrant workers who work or ree or

thus ailing to recognise the multiplicity o

nominal

use in existing building structures. Policy is

clusters; such fexible conditions o work-live

thus infexible to people’s requirements and

spaces and the adaptations that owners have

individuals’ adaptability through time.

made through time to address labourers’ needs

•

are not addressed in SRA policy.

While the majority of people in Dhar ara avi

Many Ma ny co comm mmer erci cial al ac acti tivi viti ties es ar aredep edepen ende dent nt compensation

within

commercial

have an exceptional ability to adapt to both new

•

social and physical conditions, the SRA policy

part o a wider chain o production that connects

does not recognise the multiplicity o activities

people to the rest o Dharavi and its economic

and use o space or home-based activities

networks. SRA policy ails to understand the

inside fats, nor does it recognise the fexibility

diversity and fexibility o space and networks

o space as an issue requiring attention.

that home-based commercial activities require.

•

•

Social Soc ialc cohe ohesio sion nwas wasf foun ound dto tobe beneg negati ativel vely y

aected in high-rise rehabilitation projects,

SmallSma ll-sc scale alehom home-ba e-based sedacti activit vities iesoft often enform f orm

Resi Re side dent ntia ialand land co comm mmer erci cial al te tene neme ment ntsar sare e

oten very small and have a multiplicity o co-

DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 003

existing uses, where many activities are extended into open spaces outside the main structures.

Recommendations The ndings o our study indicate a clear disconnect

Such multiplicity and adaptation through time is

between the proposed plan or the redevelopment o

not recognised at the policy level.

Dharavi and the current situation o the stakeholders most aected by the process: the citizens o Dharavi.

Urban Analysis

Our recommendations come in the orm o two

Our eldwork enabled a better understanding o the

scenarios, each containing various proposals that

urban orms present in Dharavi, and o their association

reconcile our ndings to dierent visions or Dharavi.

with dierent uses and social interactions.

The rst scenario explores new ways to include key ndings into the DRP, while the second proposes an

Some key ndings illustrate that: •

alternative vision which abandons certain components

Corr Co rrel elat atio ion n be betw twee een n so soci ciet etal al or orga gani nisa sati tion ons s

o the DRP DRP,, with clear justications or each depar ture,

and living clusters was strongest in hutments

in order to be more sensitive to the current reality o

ormed around multi-unctional open spaces,

the area and its citizens.

and hutments with direct access open spaces. •

Nagar Na gars s(n (nei eigh ghbo bour urho hood ods) s)o org rgan anis ised eda aro roun und d

These scenarios in particular were created in recognition o the diversity o stakeholders involved in

open spaces use this exterior domain to socialise

the DRP process, including the recently created Expert

with neighbours and to operate small-scale

Advisory Panel to the DRP as the prime civil society

businesses.

representative body, in order to oer new options

•

and perspectives as well as to support continuous and

Exterior spaces in organic clusters with

minimal open spaces were generally used only to

incremental negotiations.

carry out household chores. •

Units

were

often

built

incrementally,

The First Scenario highlights the need or greater

by adding storeys to the ground level to

transparency, citizen involvement, and the recognition

accommodate changing needs.

o the heterogeneous nature o the residents o Dharavi.

•

The aims o the proposals in this Scenario are to:

Incremental building accounts for the

diversity o the urban environment, and the

•

synthesis o dierent storey buildings in close

directly engaging with the existing civil society

proximity.

organisations in Dharavi;

•

•

Manu Ma nufa fact ctu uri ring ng cl clu uste ters rs req equi uiri ring ng grea eate terr

accessibility were strategically located along primary and secondary local roads.

004

DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism

Suggest

grassroots

involvement

by

Prop Pr opos oseth ethesa esale leofad ofaddi diti tion onal aloo oorsp rspac ace e

to recipients o the provided fats.

This plural approach to housing provision looks

Conclusions

to be more adaptive and enabling to people through

The report outlines the importance o addressing the

the process o transormation, by acknowledging the

diversity o needs and aspirations within Dharavi and

existing diversity in capacity and needs within the

Mumbai at an institutional level by allocating suitable

community. It recognises the potential o existing

room or manoeuvre within a relevant and responsive

households to participate more equitably in the

policy ramework. While criticising the DRP or not being

process.

refectively inormed, nor seemingly acknowledging the diversity present at multiple levels within Dharavi,

The Second Scenario underlines the multiplicity and diversity o the citizens o Dharavi, and thus the

the report seeks to demonstrate means by which such action can be taken.

need or a wider scale and complex urban proposal. Regarding the redevelopment strategy, the programme presented in this scenario conceptualises the need and means to: •

Inte In tegr grat ate emi migr gran ants ts; ;

•

Acknowledge the role of the dierent

morphological orms in Dharavi; • each

Provi vide de a ra rang nge e of ar arch chiite tect ctur ural al opt ptio ions ns,, adapted

to

specic

conditions

o

residents; •

Recognise the historical quar ters and

the emotional attachment o citizens to such spaces; •

Incorporate,

with

greater

integrity,

involvement o the citizens o Dharavi in the process o transormation.


006 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

01 Chapter INTRODUCTION 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 conictive nature.

1.1 Locating Mumbai: Mumbai: a World Class City? Mumbai is a locus o economic activity that attracts both an infux o global capital as well as migrants drawn rom across the country in search o opportunity. While the ormer orges orges avenues avenues connecting Mumbai into the global g lobal network o ‘world-class’ cities, the latter

Mumbai

are orced to negotiate a complex spatial-political landscape where they lack adequate avenues o representation and infuence. At a spatial level migrants are urther challenged by the physical physical reality o the city:

Dharavi

located on a peninsula (Figure 1.1), Mumbai aces acute

Chambda Bazaar

pressure on land, resulting in over hal the population o the cityresiding in inormal settlements or ‘slums’ (Patel, D’Cruz and Burra, 2003: 160).

Figure 1.1 Greater Mumbai

The economic liberalisation o India in the early 1990s marked a shit in priorities and the beginning o Mumbai’s aspirations toward an outward looking, ambitious vision o global competition. This was maniested by the global consulting rm McKinsey &

Bandra-Kurla Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC)

Company Inc. in 2003 as contracted by Bombay First, an elite citizen group seeking to make the city a better place

Dharavi

to live, work and invest in and aiming to serve the city with the best that private business can oer. oer. This vision, vision, endorsed and presently pursued by the municipal and state government, simply stated means that “i Mumbai has to be a World Class city then the slums have to go,

Figure 1.2 Dharavi

or which strong and urgent steps need to be taken. Any encroachment o public property cannot be tolerated

development pushed northwards, Dharavi became its

and must be dealt with according to the rule o law.”

geographical centre. Currently it is located between

(Mahadevia and Narayanan, 1999: 2)

inner-city districts districts and the nancial centre BandraKurla Complex, near Chhatrapati Shivaji International

1.2 Dharavi Dharavi:: the Heart o Contested Urbanism Popularly known as Asia’s largest slum, Dharavi is characterised by its strategic location in the centre o

Airport. Strong transportation connections link the periphery o Dharavi to Mumbai, helping to make Dharavi a ocal area or development.

Mumbai (Figure 1.2), and thus nds itsel at the hear t o

This case o contested urbanism highlights land

a challenging, highly contested debate over the uture

values and built densities at the core o the argument

o the city and its development process. process.

over Mumbai’s uture, accentuating inequalities

Dharavi has evolved in this context rom a small shing

and driving the contest over space. The ingrained

village, whose genesis lies in the policy o demolition

behaviour o the actors involved and their complex

and relocation the city ollowed or many years, where

inter-relationships accentuate this confictive nature.

squatters were pushed o valuable land in south

Signicant government and market pressure towards

Mumbai and moved onto this swampy, unhygienic area

becoming a world-class city and thus wiping out

(Sharma, 2000: 24). Jockin, the leader o NSDF, NSDF, notes that

‘slums’’ push against the struggle or a bottom-up, ‘slums

‘the poor are used as bulldozers to ll swamps, even out

inclusive development process by NGO groups such

the land, make it habitable and just ater this happens

as SPARC, grassroots organisations including Mahila

the city moves in and they are moved out – to another

Milan and the NSDF and heterogeneous citizen groups

uninhabitable plot o land’ (ibid.: 19). As Mumbai’s

in Dharavi. These latter groups are diverse in nature, and importantly in strategies and tactics, where groups


such as SPARC work in a model o 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 dicult to characterise in a ew adjectives, although many actively resist the DRP DRP.. The Expert Advisory Panel

A Snapshot o Dharavi

to the DRP, DRP, the one avenue or civil society engagement

- Geographic area: 239 hectares

in the Project, has the complex task o mediating these

- Number o nagars (neighbourhoods): over 80

conficting demands towards its goals o making the

- Population size: Between 700,000 and 1 million

redevelopment process ‘more humane’.

people - Institutions: 27 temples, 11 mosques, 6 churches,

Dharavi thus demands a shit in perspective to recognise its diverse and confictive nature both within its boundaries and in relation to Mumbai as a whole. There is a need or the production o policies and space to inorm each other in a mutually supportive ashion through the recognition o livelihood livelihood assets. assets. At an

3 primary/secondary schools - Economic activity: Annual turnover o business is estimated at £350 million - 23% o the population is employed in small scale industries - 70-80% o Dharavi’s Dharavi’s workorce also reside there

institutional level, it is important that the diversity o needs and aspirations within Dharavi and Mumbai be

(Sources: BBC, 2006; Sharma, 2000; Chatterjee interview, 2009)

addressed by allocating suitable room or manoeuvre within a relevant and responsive policy ramework. ramework. While the challenges o scaling-up development are recognised, readjusting the conceptual relationship between a hutment dweller and a tenement dweller as well as the physical translation o re-housing and its livelihood impacts should be given primary consideration

in

uture

redevelopment

plans.

Implementing appropriate and relevant processes within a tightly linked and responsive spatial-political landscape creates a critical path where transormative intentions can be realised and sustained. Dharavi’s

treatment

by

various

government

organisations such as the Municipal Corporation o Greater Mumbai (MCGM), the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and the Government o Maharashtra (GoM) will not only clearly reveal their true priorities priorities in urther developing Mumbai, but it will also map uncharted spatial-political territory, setting a precedent or uture patterns o development and the treatment o the inormal sector in India and beyond. There is a need to refect upon the nature and implications o such urban change in the conficted heart o Mumbai.

009 DHARAVI a acase caseoo contested contestedurbanism urbanism 006 DHARAVI

ragmented and unevenly distributed power prioritises

1.3 Terms o Reerence The terms o reerence or the work in Dharavi are as

the vision o some actors over others. Transormation is thus understood as a process that occurs as dominant

ollows:

and resistant orces converge within a context o 1. To conduct an urban analysis o Chambda Bazaar,

cooperative confict. This undamentally alters the

aiming to explore its spatial integration in the wider

production o space and policy, thus enabling the

context, taking into consideration the strengths and

enhancement o livelihoods through time. The concept

weaknesses o the proposed plans alongside assets and

o livelihoods is understood as people, their capacity

livelihoods

and means o living, demonstrated by the confuence o ve distinct types o capital: human, social, physical,

2. To explore the experienced impact on livelihoods

nancial, and natural (Chambers and Conway, 1991).

in two in-situ development projects – Bharat Janata and

The production o space and policy is thus deemed

Rajiv Indira – coordinated by Mumbai-based NGO, NG O, SPARC, SPARC,

to be appropriate and relevant when the criteria o

and the anticipated impact on livelihoods o the in-situ

diversity, adaptability, fexibility, and multiplicity are

development in Chambda Bazaar. Baz aar. Focus Focus is specically on

present, and the critical integration o these criteria is

the spatial implications both or commercial structures

a prerequisite or sustaining a transormative process.

and home-based economic activities, namely exploring

Within Dharavi, a linked spatial-political landscape,

the relationship between

transormation needs to elevate the negative notion o

a.Livelihoods

and

design

or

commercial

dwellers, and be acilitated by appropriate and relevant

structures b.Livelihoods

hutment dwellers to recognised citizens as tenement

and

design

or

home-based

economic activities inrastructure

participatory processes. Cooperative conict is a situation where the inherent reality o confict is recognised and all parties

3. To explore with the dierent actors involved

work together in this contested context to reach an

(household members and community groups, NGOs, and

agreed point that is constantly reconstructed and

relevant government and private sector organizations)

renegotiated (Levy, 2007: 6). Currently a multiplicity o

proposals which will strengthen the in-situ development

conficting orces, visions, identities and power relations

in Dharavi in the uture in a manner which will contribute

exist within Dharavi, where urban change is driven

to their transormative intentions

by central dominant orces (DRP, MHADA, etc.) and countered by peripheral resistant orces (the citizens o

1.4 Theoretical Framework In the context o these terms o reerence, it is critical to

Dharavi, SPARC, NSDF, NSDF, etc.) that struggle or inclusion in the process, with the latter’s claims negotiated by the

clariy the entry point p oint into the case, our understanding o

Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP. Some actors have

the concept o transormation, and the criteria by which

adopted strategies or inclusion and infuence in this

we judge the success o the Dharavi Redevelopment

process by acting as a collective, as is the case with the

Project’s (DRP) transormative intentions. This clarication

Alliance o SPARC, NSDF and Mahila Milan, the rst two

positions our outlook on the situation in relation to that

represented on the Expert Advisory Panel. An identied

o established actors and guides our proposals aimed at

platorm or congruence is the productive capacity o

achieving such transormation.

Dharavi, providing an opportunity or cooperation

Dharavi is located in a web o contested urbanism

within this contested environment. The desired result is

through a perception o the production o space as an

that the aspirations and assets o the citizens o Dharavi

inherently confictual process, where various orms o

become valued and included as integral parts o the

injustice are not only maniested, but produced and

urban network at multiple scales. ‘Citizen’ is explicitly

reproduced (Dikeç, 2001: 1788).

used here as a political term to acknowledge a political

Power in the redevelopment process is seen, through

community, as well as the rights, obligations and claims

a Foucaultian lens, as underlying all social relations,

to which the state must be accountable (Friedmann and

being fuid in nature and having multiple sources. This

Douglass, 1998: 1).


The our criteria used as a basis or assessment

These primary criteria seek to ensure the

in our analysis and used as the drivers o our

appropriate and relevant production o space

proposals are:

and policy. The critical integration o these criteria is a prerequisite or sustaining a desirable

Diversity:

transormative transormativ e process.

The plurality o identity and perception, both individual and collective, related to social, economic and spatial networks

1.5 Vision Dharavi stands at a threshold o heated debate uelled

Adaptability:

by market pressures and conficting interests related to

The capacity to shape an ideological or

the present reality and uture image o Mumbai.

strategic response within an existing constrictive ramework

In the context o the movement towards a global, universal city vision, we recognise the unique, multiple and dynamic character o Dharavi alongside the need

Flexibility:

to reconcile global demands with local aspirations

A uid, versatile quality that eectively

o Mumbai.

addresses

and resilience o the citizens o Dharavi, we propose

divergent

desires

and

priorities

Highlighting the capacities, diversity

strategies o transormation, inclusion, livelihood and the production o building and urban orms must be critically

Multiplicity:

integrated within a fexible and responsive ramework o

The amplifcation, ragmentation, and

individual and cultural contexts and adaptations through

integration o ormative processes in

time.

order to oer suitable solutions or dierent requirements

gure 1.5 diagram o actor pressures (adapted rom Pieterse 2003)


Reerences BBC news channel, 2006. Lie in a slum. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/ spl/hi/world/06/dharavi_ spl/hi/world/0 6/dharavi_slum/html/dha slum/html/dharavi_slum_in ravi_slum_intro.stm] tro.stm] Chambers R., Conway G., 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts or the 21st century. Institute o Development Studies, Brighton. Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. Lecture at SPARC Khetwadi oce on the 8th o May 2009. Dikeç Mustaa, 2001. Justice and the spatial imagination. Environment and Planning A. [http://www.envplan.com] Friedmann J., Douglass M., 1998: Cities or Citizens: Planning and the Rise o Civil Society in a Global Age. Wiley, New York. Levy Caren, 2007. Dening collective strategic action led by civil society organisations: the case o CLIFF, India. 8th N-AERUS conerence held on the 6 September in London. Mahadevia D., Narayanan H., 1999. Shanghaing Mumbai – Politics o Evictions and Resistance in Slum Settlements. Centre For Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad. McKinsey & Company, 2003. Vision Mumbai: Transorming Mumbai into a world-class city. September, 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.


010


02 Chapter METHODOLOGY Process Assumptions and Limitations

Livelihood proles and network patterns would become a key theme throughout our research, inorming our conceptual ramework and analysis, and subsequently laying the oundation or our scenario proposals.

2.1 Process

social, physical, nancial, and natural. Questions in these

Due to the shiting location o our work, the

semi-structured interviews were generally grouped

methodology used in this case evolved through time.

into broad categories o history, process and space, and

Introduced on 16 January, 2009, the pre-trip research

were ormulated or use in the rehabilitation buildings

began in London on 23 January, 2009.

in Bharat Janata, then or home-based activities, or

A series o

lectures and presentations was complemented with a

manuacturing and retail in Chambda Baazar. These

vast literature review rom books, academic journals

questionnaires can be ound in Appendix 1.

and websites. Inormation was then triangulated to

For our own refective practice, a blog was created

account or the various perspectives and potential biases

to document and share our learning and challenges.

o authors’ in order to provide a clearer oundation or

Individuals were open to express their refections

mapping key actors involved in the case, as presented

through writing, photography or video, unpacking their

or critical eedback in London in February 2009. The next

experience in a specic moment, day or o the entire

step, sustained until we let or the eld in early May, was

process and their role within it. The blog can be visited

the development o our diagnosis and strategies, which

at http://buddsinmumbai.blogspot.com/.

again were provoked and challenged through eedback in early May.

2.2 Assumptions and Limitations

During our work in Mumbai, rom 5 to 25 May, 2009,

As with any research project there exist various

the established methods o data collection continued to

assumptions and limitations. In this case they positioned

expand and diversiy alongside our perceptions o the

the work within a reality yielding conscious recognition

situation. Regular morning lectures rom individuals and

o shortcomings and biases. The key limitation was the

representatives o the various actors were supplemented

restricted time we had in the eld, where one and a hal

with aternoon sessions on site in Dharavi, acilitated by

aternoons were spent in Rajiv Indira, three and a hal

SPARC, SP ARC, KRVIA and Mahila Milan. Our eldwork in Chambda

in Bharat Janata, and seven aternoons in Chambda

Bazaar, Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata consisted o eld

Bazaar. Our time in Dharavi on these days were limited

observations and both semi-structured and inormal

rom 15h00 to 18h00, meaning that we were unable to

interviews with residents, with the goal o bridging

witness, or example, changes in spatial use at dierent

inormation gaps in the relationships between spatial

times o the day, or to speak with a broader diversity o

design, policy and livelihoods. Five interviews were

individuals that may have not been present or visible

conducted with residents o Rajiv Indira, ourteen in Bharat

at this time o the day. The time constraints intensied

Janata, and around 50 interviews in Chambda Baazar,

the selective, strategic decisions made in the eld with

with these including inormal discussions alongside

regards to the interviews conducted and the areas

more ormal in-depth semi-structured interviews. Key

prioritised or mapping.

highlights rom 24 o the in-depth interviews can be ound in Appendix 2. Mapping o urban orm, economic

In order to gather a sucient representation o the

networks and livelihood patterns was also conducted in

diversity within Dharavi, we set out to conduct as many ma ny

Chambda Bazaar to link together spatial layout at the t he scale

interviews as time constraints allowed. While attempts

o the individual nagar (neighborhood) (neighborh ood) with the whole o

were made to ensure that the vast diversity o people

Dharavi through extensive networks o production.

and place was uncovered in all three research sites, it is

Livelihood proles, as highlighted opposite, upper

recognised that our ndings must be contextualised in

right hand side and in Appendix 2, and network patterns

this limited timerame and constraints we aced. Thus

became a key theme throughout our research, inorming

our success cannot be ully comprehended without a

our conceptual ramework and analysis, and subsequently

larger sample size o interviews and data collection. For

laying the oundation or our scenario proposals. The

the purpose o this research, assumptions were made

rst took shape through the semi-structured in-depth

that a sucient and somewhat representative amount

interviews, where questions sought to understand

o the huge diversity o people o Dharavi was captured,

people’s capacities and means o living, specically

thus meaning that our results and proposals are realistic

drawing out the ve orms o assets or capital: human,

and plausible, responding to the requirements and


DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 017

03 Chapter TOWARDS TOW ARDS THE T HE DHAR DHARA AVI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT? Government Policy Evolution Towards Towards Slums Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Policy Comparison and Critique Physical Proposals and Critiques Conicting Visions of the DRP Conclusions

Several policies shape the inuence of the DRP, which have been created for various reasons and have varying impacts on the residents of Dharavi. Dharavi. Using these policies 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 char t new territory toward overcoming them.

3.1 Government Policy Evolution Towards Towards Slums Public land encroachment in Indian cities is neither

projects, and a census (1976) o slum dwellers living on government land.

a minor nor a new problem. Central, state and local

In the second hal o the ‘80s the Bombay Urban

government have engaged the issue since the 1950s

Development Project ran two programmes (Slum

with very dierent approaches. While the latter have

Upgrading and Low-income Group Shelter Programme)

a much greater relevance on housing matters, central

that although did not gave exceptional practical results,

government is “the largest single owner o urban land in

have the merit o introducing the issue o land tenure

India” (Burra, (Burra, 2005: 68) (Figure 3.1).

and the idea o nancing housing or LIG through the

Ater India’s independence in 1947, the rst

sale o properties to middle and upper income groups.

government approach to the issue o slums has been

In the ‘90s the idea o cross-subsided projects or LIG

a harsh policy o clearance; slums were systematically

was consolidated, and due to World Bank pressure, the

demolished without any consideration or the amilies

Government o Maharashtra included resettlement and

living on them.

rehabilitation has an integral part o every project. The

The radical policy o slum clearance lasted more than

Government aims were to minimize resettlements in

two decades, until in the ‘70s the evidence o the method

avour o in-situ rehabilitation, to carry out the project

ailure in addition to practical considerations called or a

with a more participative approach and to maintain the

change. The government perception o slums changed

existing social networks.

rom being a problem to a possible solution to the problem

An important step towards the recognition o slum

itsel. The main achievements o this decade have been

dwellers’ rights was made in 1995 with the approval

policies or the provision to slums o basic amenities

o the Slum Rehabilitation Act; this act protects rom

such as water and sanitation, the recognition o the

eviction every citizen that can prove they have been

need to relocate slum dwellers aected by government

living in Mumbai since 1st January 1995 (subsequently

Figure 3.1 gurea o evolution o governemnt approach to slums


Figure 3.2 Mumbai, photo by Chirodeep Chaudhuri

Figure 3.3 Mumbai, photo by Chirodeep Chaudhuri

modied to 1st o January 2000). In 2001 the Slum

(Figure 3.5). While the DRP process claims that it seeks to

Rehabilitation Act was amended and it was added that i

treat Dharavi residents as partners in the project and to

demolition was unavoidable in order to clear land, some

ensure that livelihood issues are adequately addressed in

alternative accommodation must be provided or the

planning and implementation (ibid.), there is at present

aected people.

no clear path or method or either to occur. Since the main parts o the DRP are based on the Slum Redevelopment

3.2 Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project

Act, private developers are required to contribute to

Under conditions o global neoliberalism that have

improve inrastructure. Under the Slum Rehabilitation

characterised urban India rom 1991 onwards, Mumbai

Scheme (SRS), adopted in 1995, private developers build

has around 13 million citizens, with an additional

social housing or the inhabitants on the site and in turn

7 million in the suburbs and increasing numbers

benet rom additional or-sale buildings to generate

migrating rom all parts o India over the past decades.

prots. However, these rules have been modied or the

While Mumbai became India’s nancial capital in this

area o Dharavi in the DRP.

period, at the same time over hal the city’s residents live in inormal settlements. One o Mumbai’s main goals is

3.3 Policy Comparison and Critique

the transormation into a world-class city by shiting

Several policies shape the inuence o the DRP DRP,, which

its image rom the location o Asia’s biggest slum to a

have been created or various reasons and have varying

model o redevelopment (Mhaiskar lecture, 12 May

impacts on the residents o Dharavi. Using these policies

2009). In order to become a city comparable to Shanghai,

as a starting point, it is then possible to imagine the

politicians intended to replace inormal settlements

physical territories they will chart. They have the potential

with high-rise developments. (Figure 3.2 and 3.3)

to either urther embed existing inequalities, or to chart

Due to its strategic geographical location and

new territory toward overcoming them.

pressures on the island city, as explained in section 1.2, the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) was

One Single Solution

introduced as an integrated special planning area in

According to the Maharashtra State Housing Policy

2004 and it was declared as a crucial public project by

or slum rehabilitation, the in-situ redevelopment can

the government o Maharashtra in 2007. The DRP has

be implemented through a menu o options such as

been developed by the architect Mukesh Mehta to the

clusters, townships, and others. On the contrary, the

present.

Dharavi Redevelopment Project carries out in-situ

Declared as a special planning area in 2004, the

redevelopment through the implementation o a single

Dharavi redevelopment Project (DRP) divides the area

solution or the whole o Dharavi. This shows that the

into ve sectors or development by ve private sector

DRP does not reer to the unique characteristics cha racteristics o place,

developers, to be selected through a transparent

with over 80 dierent nagars in Dharavi whose diversity

bidding process (Chatterjee lecture, 8 May 2009). It

cannot be sustained through a single alternative. a lternative. In order

envisions a spatial transormation rom horizontal, low-

to sustain this variety, the DRP needs to be changed into

rise ‘slums’ to a high-rise podium style typology (Figure

a more comprehensive plan, ocusing on citizens’ wide-

3.4); yet how will this change be maniested in reality

ranging needs and aspirations. DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 021

Figure 3.4 DRP proposal proposal sketch: sketch: Mumbai Mirror

Figure 3.5 negotiati ng the change rom 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 or

considered and their spatial and livelihood requirements and aspirations remain unrecognised.

redevelopment; however the DRP considers only unit tenure rather than specically the security o land tenure.

Eligibility

The matter o land tenure status in the DRP is unclear.

The slum dwellers that can prove residence rom

“The Municipal Corporation o Greater Mumbai (MCGM)

beore 01 January 2000 are entitled to permanent

owns approximately 77 per cent o the land in Dharavi,

accommodation at no cost. The DRP is divisive at heart

with the rest held by other government and private

since it segregates those who are eligible to be resettled

parties” (Patel (Patel S. et al. a l. 2009: 245). Furthermore, the land lan d is

in the new rehabilitation units, (about 25% o the

used or various private leases and public purposes. The

population according to Gautam Chatterjee) rom the

issue o land tenure seems to be a challenge to the DRP

remaining residents o Dharavi, who are ineligible

in cooperating with diverse interests between dierent

(cited in Business India, 2009). The residents who are

stakeholders. In addition, the DRP provides certain

ineligible will be let to nd a new shelter and working

residents with the security o unit tenure; hence it seems

space on their own.

that the DRP does not guarantee existing residents the stable ownership o their house in the long term, leaving a possibility that the inhabitant will be evicted in the

Transerrable Transerr able Development Rights The SRA scheme notes that the surplus o Floor

uture.

Space Index (FSI) should be used or the low-income

Community Participation

housing and inrastructure on site. The DRP uses the

Under the SRA, slum rehabilitation can be led by

surplus FSI as an incentive to the developers, who can

housing cooperative societies in partnership with NGOs.

sell additional development rights on the open market.

Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira are examples o SRA

It is quite evident that the surplus will contribute to the

projects in partnership partn ership with SPARC and the Alliance. Even

developers’ interest in maximizing their prots. This

though the DRP mentions community participation, a

market driven policy will make it impossible to improve

participatory approach in Dharavi’s redevelopment exists

the quality o existing residents’ living conditions.


A Snapshot o the SRA - Hutments existing prior to 01 January 1995 are protected - All hutment dwellers on electoral rolls prior to 01 January Januar y 1995 are eligible or rehabilitation (one unit / amily) - Eligible residential hutments are replaced with 225 sq. t. structure on the same site - Eligible commercial hutments are replaced with a max. 225 sq. t. structure - I 70% o eligible slum dwellers agree agree to orm a co-op housing society, society, they can implement a Slum Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Scheme - The developer contributes money, labour, and construction materials or rehabilitation units - Stimulus FSI to be used as an incentive or developers (Source: http://www.sra.gov.in)

Figure 3.6 DRP transormation in Dharavi

A Snapshot o the DRP - MCGM owns 76% o the land in Dharavi - Division into 5 sectors, undertaken through a public-private partnership model by 5 dierent developers - Stimulus FSI to be used as an incentive or developers - Global FSI o 4.0 (compared to 2.5) - 42% o land area or rehabilitation / 58% or market-sale construction - All hutment dwellers on electoral rolls prior to 01 January 2000 are eligible or rehabilitation (one unit / amily) - ‘Podium’ ‘Podium’ Typology proposed as a singular solution - 11-Member Expert Advisory Panel Assembled in 2008 - Socioeconomic Survey o Dharavi conducted by the NGO, MASHAL - Formalises all economic networks, incrementally taxing the citizens o Dharavi - Free rehabilitation units to be 269 sq. t. internal area with 31 sq. t. balcony (Source: Chatterjee Chatterjee meeting, 16 May 2009) 008

DHARAVI a acase caseoo contested contestedurbanism urbanism 023 DHARAVI

3.4 Physical Proposals and Critiques Five Sectors The Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) proposes several physical alterations or Dharavi. The rst and most crucial point, in terms o spatial planning, is regarding the division o Dharavi into ve sectors. (Figure 3.7 and 3.8) These ve 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 o the road grid without understanding the social and cultural complexities within that network. According to this specic division, ve dierent developers will

Figure 3.7 original Dharavi’s division in 85 nagars

undertake the redevelopment or each sector. It is quite evident that the developers will aim to maximise their prots without acknowledging the social and cultural richness o Dharavi. It I t is the state’ state’ss role, however, however, through the developmental plans, to achieve a comprehensive compromise between the needs o the developers and the aspirations o the people. Additionally, according to the DRP, 70% o new units are designated or rehabilitation; the remaining 30% is or sale, while more than 80% o this sale portion will be or commercial use, in order to nance the project. This act brings into doubt whether the quality o the rehabilitation units will be equal to the ones designated or sale. Floor Space Index o 4

Figure 3.8 The 5 sector by Mehta

podium typology (Figure 5.6). This image published in

Another important element o the DRP is the increase

the Mumbai Mirror newspaper illustrates quite clearly

o the Floor Space Index (FSI) rom 2.5 to 4. This increase

the transormative intentions o the project. We can

is applied only to Dharavi. Moreover, the rehabilitation

see how Dharavi changes rom a horizontal, low-rise

units will not exceed the height o eight storeys (G+8)

typology to a vertical, high-rise one. As seen rom the

but in some cases, depending on the regulations, the

image the residential units will be placed on the top

number o oors will be increased to ten (G+10). The size

oors o the buildings, while the commercial units will

o the rehabilitation units provided or ree to the eligible

be located at the ground and rst oor. The parking

slum dwellers will be 300 sq. t., which can be raised to

area will be on the third oor, just below the pedestrian

400 sq. t. with the payment o an extra construction

only podium level. An emergent issue rom this is how

cost. This again raises questions the inclusiveness o the

a monolithic typology can accommodate the daily

project, since not everyone will able to meet the specic

needs o people and their aspirations or uture. Will the

requirements o DRP. Furthermore, the increased FSI will

proposed podium typology be able to accommodate

contribute to higher urban densities, having massive

the current unctioning o multi-scaled enterprises?

impacts not only on the physical layout but also on the social and economic lie o Dharavi.

3.5 Conficting Visions Visions o the DRP Government Vision

Podium Typo Typology logy The third key element o the DRP is the proposed


“The project’s objective is their [Dharavi residents’] mass economic uplitment by providing better

alternatives o living and business opportunities” (Chatterjee, 2008). “The single most crucial task is to convince and convey the message to the 55,000 amilies o Dharavi that the redevelopment is or their good and that the government is doing it to scale up their economic abilities” (Chatterjee, 2008). Although the pressure towards the transormation o Dharavi comes rom many dierent actors, the government is the initiator, driver and nal 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 o providing better living conditions or the residents o Dharavi, with a belie 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 o development through the three key elements in the transormation process as expressed by the Mumbai Transormation Support Unit, the organisation created to seek loans or mega projects and determine the technical inputs needed to transorm Mumbai into a world-class city (Madan lecture, 12 May 2009). “The Slum Redevelopment Authority is supportive o the notion that the redevelopment o Dharavi should generate resources or the government, even i that means evacuating a portion o the residents and increasing the population density o the area, which is already one o 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 ofcers. The government’s vision or the DRP remains positive, despite the long delays that the project has suered and the 2008 nancial crisis, which has caused several developers to withdraw their th eir bids. Private Sector Visions

“The Dharavi makeover plan requires huge investments investme nts […] the original bid document required all the 19 bidders to pay 10% o the project cost upront in the orm o a bank drat” (Naik, 2009) . Considering the public private partnership model in which the DRP is grounded, the government is placing

Figure 3.9 Transormation process o Indian cities towards a world class city

great value on the role o this actor or nancing and development; thus their opinion is highly relevant. Mukesh Mehta, one o the key private sector developers backing the development o the DRP, deends it based on the critique o the previous SRA scheme and the need o Dharavi residents to enjoy amenities such as open spaces and inrastructure. According to Mr. Mehta the adjective ‘sustainable’ is the one that best describes the DRP, and at the Urban Age India Conerence held in Mumbai in 2007 he summarised the DRP objectives as or rehabilitation o amilies and their businesses within Dharavi. Mehta’s positive positive vision o the DRP is summarised in his statement “We’re “We’re telling the slum-dwellers: ‘Instead o the 100 sq. t. space you are living in, you will have 225 sq. t. Instead o 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 o some developers are ocused on nancial and procedural matters about the DRP’s easibility. The Mumbai based property developer Housing Development & Inrastructure Limited (HDIL) provides an example o a sceptical vision o the DRP: “the project has become unviable and we are not sure when it will take o. 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 our to ve years. Today, capital is not coming that easily and we do not want to invest a single rupee in an unviable project” (Pandey, (Pandey, 2009). The international rm HOK voluntarily prepared an alternative proposal to the DRP alleging that “today’s redevelopment eort threatens Dharavi’s contributions” (HOK, 2008). “The current developer-oriented process puts orth an approach based on divided, discrete superparcels DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 025

that may disregard the generations o culture, scale and

Dharavi was allocated to us against a payment o

texture that dene this vibrant and relevant community”

Rs 1 lakh to a Parsi landlord. So the land on which

(ibid.). (Figure 3.10)

Dharavi’s Kumbharwada (potters’ settlement) is located belongs to us…” (Raju Chauhan, Dharavi

NGOs and Research Institutions’ Visions Visions

resident, cited on World Prout Assembly). “I will be very happy or the redevelopment plan.

“We think it’s a way to appear to do something or

I I have a good place or my business I want to

the poor while really gentriying the area” (Patel (Patel cited

stay. Change has to come. But here people are

in the Economist, 2005).

emotionally attached to each other. They don’t

“Even i they do re-house everyone, they are not

want to leave. They have everything here and they

likely to allow the residents much say in what kind o

are happy. But change must happen. The airport

housing it will be and where” (Arputham, 2007).

is very close, the road. For me it’s the best place to

“Even i everyone, including Dharavi’s residents,

work but i I cannot stay I’m willing to negotiate or

agree that redevelopment is needed so that the dirt

a good place. We are preparing or this. We have to

and the flth is replaced by decent living conditions

train the people. To make them have skills” (Fashion

and security o tenure, is the style and orm o

industry owner in Dharavi, interviewed on 11 May

development chosen by the government the most

2009).

appropriate or Dharavi?” (Sharma, 2008). The previous statements summarise the dierent NGOs such as SPARC have a critical vision o the DRP,

vision that the residents o Dharavi expressed: there

but at the same time maintain a close and highly strategic

are sceptical groups that have been living in Dharavi Dha ravi or

relationship with government bodies in order to unction unct ion

many generations and are ready to ght i their rights

as acilitators between dierent institutional levels. The

are not respected, then there are other more moderate

main concerns expressed by NGOs regarding the DRP

groups that do not oppose the redevelopment plan, but

reer to the relocation o residents, the complete lack o

are aware o the dangers that it may imply imp ly and thereore

an inclusive process and the possible consequences o a

they want to be part o the process.

government/market-driven process o redevelopment.

Dharavi residents are an extremely diverse group,

The main academic institution that has collaborated with

divided by social status, religion, origin, gender and

the Alliance (SPARC, NSDF, NSDF, and Mahila Milan) M ilan) is the Kamla Kam la

age and their multiplicity o visions reects this; such

Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute or Architecture (KRVIA).

diversity is at the heart o the difculty o reaching a

The school’s director commented that the DRP does

general consensus. But the diversity o Dharavi is not the

not provide enough detail and is a tool or negotiation

only challenge towards a more inclusive redevelopment:

rather than implementation, and expressed concern that

an attempt o setting up a group o representatives or

it is undamentally driven by real estate returns (Anirudh

the residents o Dharavi was made on January 2009 with

lecture, 6 May 2009). Further concerns were shared

the creation o a consultative committee, the Advisory

about the excessive population density o Dharavi and

Board (see article on the Indianexpress, 2009). Eleven

the inaccurate demographic survey, which may lead to

members rom dierent backgrounds were selected and

uture plans based on incorrect calculations (ibid.).

invited to make recommendations to the government on dierent practical and organizational aspects. The

Residents’ Visions

committee’s task o steering the government decisions toward a more needs-ocused approach through the

“Who says Dharavi does not belong to us? Our

translation o a possible general consensus into planning

oreathers rom Saurashtra came to south Mumbai

and policies proposals will not be easy and there is no

in the early 1890s. In 1933, the government allocated

certainty that it will make a real dierence on the nal

us land, but our entire colony was burnt down.

implementation o the DRP. DRP.

Then some powerul Gujarati traders pressured the government and 12.50 acres (5 hectares) o land in


3.6 Conclusions These main physical proposals o the DRP cannot address the ndings o our analysis. a nalysis. The basic dierence is in regards to the identied inormality and complexity ound in Dharavi, which links space with living and working. This inormality allows the co-existence o businesses with social lie, transorming Dharavi into a vibrant economy and society. The new proposed spatial layout does not take into account this undamental specicity o lie in Dharavi, and will result in the break down o cohesive social bonds. Furthermore, the existing multiplicity o space, in terms o usage, is lost because the new typologies strictly segregate commercial and residential units. The public communal spaces, utilised beore to nurture livelihood activities, can now barely preserve this specic unctionality. At the policy level, this single solution is not a strategic response within the constrictive ramework o Dharavi. Moreover is not exible enough or addressing the divergent desires and priorities o the citizens. Additionally, the act that community participation is restricted both in the decision-making and design processes does not respond to the multiple character o Dharavi both in terms o use

REFERENCES Arputham J., Patel S., 2007. An oer o partnership or a promise o conict in Dharavi, Mumbai?. Environment and urbanization, Sage Publicatio Publication. n. Anirudh Paul, 2009. “A Critique o the Government Plan: Dharavi Redevelopment Project”. Lecture at SPARC Khetwadi ofce on the 6th o May. Burra Sundar, 2005. Towards a pro-poor ramework or 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 modiying 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-modiying-developmen We-are-modiying -developmentr.html] tr.html]

and unction. Finally, the DRP policies are not inclusive or all the citizens o Dharavi, as the accommodation they propose concerns only eligible residents. In this way, diversity in terms o plurality o identity and perception cannot be tackled. An inclusive approach would respond to the needs o all. It is apparent that the production o space and policy through the plans and guidelines o the DRP cannot integrate the our primary criteria – diversity, multiplicity, adaptability, exibility – as assessed in our conceptual ramework.

Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. Cited in Business India, February 8, 2009. p.104. Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. “Role o Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA)” lecture at SPARC Khetwadi ofce on the 8th o May. Chauhan Raju, 2007. Dharavi’s real estate threat. Appeared on World Prout Assembly webpage on the 1st o 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 o 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 Transormation”, lecture at SPARC Khetwadi ofce on the 12th o May. Mhaiskar Milind, 2009. “Role o MMRDA and Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) under Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP)”, presentation at SPARC khetwadi ofce on the 12th o 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 o August. [http://propertybytes.indiaproperty [http://propertybytes .indiaproperty.com/?p=1 .com/?p=1323] 323] Pande Hari, 2009. “Redeveloping Dharavi is not viable or us: HDIL”. Article appeared in Redi online on the 10th o March. [http://www.redi.com/ money/2009/mar/10red money/2009 /mar/10redeveloping-dha eveloping-dharavi-is-not-v ravi-is-not-viable-or-us-hd iable-or-us-hdil.html] il.html] Patel Sheela, 2005. Inside the slums. Published on the Economist the 27th o January 2005. [http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cm?story_ id=3599622] Sharma Kalpana, 2008. The pressure on slumlands. Appeared on Inochange in April 2008. [http://inochangeindia.org/200804107053/Agenda/BattlesOver-Land/The-pressure-on-slumla Over-Land/T he-pressure-on-slumlands.html] nds.html]


04 Chapter CURRENT REALITY IN DHARAVI: ANALYSIS ANAL YSIS AND EMERGENT EME RGENT ISSUES I SSUES

Context, scope and ramework or analysis Experienced impact on livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira Urban analysis o Chambda Bazaar Anticipated impact o in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Bazaar Summary o analysis and fndings: moving into the Scenarios

The overall aspiration o the people toward policy is to acilitate a transormation that benets uture generations. Spatial environment, though important important was a secondary concern behind maintaining and promoting DHARAVI a livelihoods case o contested urbanism 02 better educational prospects.

4.1 Context, scope and ramework or analysis

The inormation collected rom interviews and observations at the given sites were ltered through

Transormation is a dynamic process that is not

the analytical concepts o policy, livelihoods and

new to Dharavi. Slum rehabilitation projects in the

space and the our criteria – diversity, adaptability,

area rst began in 1985 under the Prime Ministers

exibility and multiplicity – that orm the theoretical

Grant Project, housed within the Maharastra Housing

ramework.

and Area Development Authority (MHADA), where

As illustrated in Figure 4.1, 4.1 , in each section o the

redevelopment was intended or Dharavi by providing

analysis the ndings are located at the appropriate in-

new

cooperatively

tersection, with three circles used to illustrate the link

owned housing or its inhabitants and relocating

o an issue to the ramework. A solid circle indicates

20,000 amilies within the rest o the city (Mukhija,

a positive outcome or a strong relationship, a white

2003: 42-45). In direct response to the concerns arising

circle illustrates a negative outcome or weak relation-

especially rom the latter, NGOs such as SPARC, who

ship, and a striped circle shows partially positive and

had recently ormed an Alliance with the NSDF, began

negative outcomes or strong and weak relationships.

to work in Dharavi with the initial intention to stop all

The gures in each subsection o Section 4.2 analyse

evictions (ibid.). SPARC’s role in the Alliance evolved

the experienced impact on livelihoods in Bharat Jana-

over the next decade, alongside policy changes to the

ta and Rajiv Indira, while gures in subsections o 4.4

Slum Rehabilitation Act (SRA) in 1995, into one o a

use the ramework to analyse both the experienced

non-prot developer Cooperative Housing Societies.

reality (i.e. what was observed in the eld) alongside

inrastructure,

reconstructing

The analysis seeks to understand the experienced impact on livelihoods o these two rehabilitation projects

the anticipated impacts o in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Baazar.

under the SRA policy (Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira), to outline the results o the urban analysis o Dharavi’ Dharavi’ss Chambda Bazaar area and to identiy the anticipated impact o potential developments in the latter latter..

Figure 4.1 Example analysis diagram- issue criteria vs core analytical concepts


4.2 Experienced impact on livelihoods: Bharat

other Societies, creating a total o 209 amilies or

Janata and Rajiv Indira

rehabilitation. With SPARC SPARC as the developer, this project was the rst undertaken by an NGO under the SRA,

4.2.1 Introduction to the Rajiv Indira Housing

where ve apartment blocks have been built and each

Cooperative

tenement received 225 square eet. Three buildings

Located on the northern edge o Dharavi Rajiv

have been used to house community members and

(Figure 4 .2) Indira was inaugurated as a completed

the other two buildings have been sold on the market

project in February 2002. Fity-our amilies ormed

to make up costs and generate prots (Nirman, 2003).

the Rajiv Indira Cooperative Housing Society in March 1995 and by 1999 the project included two

Figure 4.2 Rajiv Indira location within Dharavi area

The Rajiv Indira-Suryodaya Cooperative Housing Society -Number o amilies to directly benet: 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 nance requirement and sources (in order o size): £1,066,055 (Citibank- baked by a £50,000 guarantee rom Homeless International), resh CLIFF and SPARC/Nirman (including recycled CLIFF) -Other resources leveraged: Land (government) and inrastructure (government) Source: Homeless International, 2008:10


4.2.2 Introduction to the Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society

Dharavi (Figure 4 .3), the site does not have the roadside ‘edge’ advantage o other in-situ redevelopment

One hundred and orty-seven amilies ormed the

projects; part o SPARC’s motivation was to illustrate

Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society in 1991 ater

that upgrading is possible in this context, and to test the

seeing the work and progress o the Rajiv Indira. The

Alliance’ss hypothesis that Dharavi has an Alliance’ a n internal market

agreement with SPARC was made in 1991, the demolition

or residential and commercial units (Kantha, n.d).

o 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 or sale are yet to be built. Located in the ‘middle’ o

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 oot unit. -Number o amilies to directly benet : 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 nance requirement and sources (in order o size) £616,537 (National Housing Bank backed by a £85,353 guarantee rom Homeless International), resh CLIFF and SPARC/ Nirman (including recycled CLIFF) -Other resources leveraged: Land (government) and inrastructure (government) (government) Source: Homeless International, 2008:10


Figure 4.4 Commercial activity scenes with current plan location and corresponding correspond ing analytical diagram

4.2.3 Analysis and main fndings 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 ve members with registered commercial activities (Figure 4.4). These members lived on the second oor and ran their businesses on the ground oor; currently, our o the ve rent their residential/commercial structure.

An interview with one commercial establishment renter highlighted concerns about the uture location inside a compound and o the road, possibly reducing business, increasing rent and requiring new residential accommodation in Dharavi or elsewhere. Findings illustrate that the SRA policy ails to recognise the multiplicity o use in existing building structures, thereore rendering itsel inexible to people’ people’ss requirements and to individuals’ adaptability over time.

Analysis ound that the SRA policy creates a tradeo or owners o both commercial units and residential space located in the same structure struc ture to choose between one or the other. In Bharat Janata, all ve owners chose the ormer and orwent 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 oor o the ourth building. DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 033

Home based activities

While the households interviewed reported overall

Home-based activities exist at dierent scales in Rajiv

satisaction with their conditions, the challenges or

Indira and Bharat Janata. Larger-scale activities, inormal

large scale home-based activities in the shit rom

in nature and requiring space at least equivalent to hal

horizontal to vertical living need to be addressed at a

a at or more, required signicant adaptation to new

policy level. At present, SRA policy does not recognise

conditions, and people showed great capacity in doing

the multiplicity o activities and use o space inside ats

so, as illustrated in Figure 4.5.

nor the exibility o space as an issue to be addressed in order to give people the opportunity to arrange space according to their needs, instead being orced to adapt their livelihood within restricted space. A wealth o 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 orm part o a wider chain o production that connects people living in buildings with the rest o Dharavi and its economic networks. Households interviewed in Bharat Janata oten ound it necessary to earn a supplementary income in order to pay their allotted building maintenance costs, such as the lit and water pump or 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 o use o space nor the exibility as issues to be addressed regarding small scale home-based activities These small scale activities orm part o a wider chain o production that connects people living in buildings with the rest o Dharavi and its economic networks. Households interviewed in Bharat Janata oten ound it necessary to earn a supplementary income in order to pay their allotted building maintenance costs, such as the lit and water pump or 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 o use o space nor the exibility as issues to be addressed regarding small scale home-based activities.

Figure 4.5 Larger-sca Larger-scale le home-based activities investigated and corresponding correspondin g analytical diagram.

The ew cases o larger-scale home-based activities investigated have adapted to the restricted space or their work, with improved working and living conditions.


individualised. In Bharat Janata, the corridor spaces on each oor where the doors o the apartments open are empty as people preer convening and socialising on the ground oor (Figure 4.7). Some women interviewed have adapted to high-rise living by setting up a daily meeting time on the ground oor o the building. It is evident that policy does not recognise the multiplicity o ways in which people use space, thus not providing enough spatial diversity to meet people’s habits and ways o living, especially regarding communal lie.

Figure 4.6 Small-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding correspond ing analytical diagram.

Fractured social networks Over ty percent o women and teenagers interviewed experience a sense o social isolation in moving rom hutment dwelling to tenement dwelling. Numerous interviewees explained how the physical layout o their hutments was more conducive to socialising, as the doors and windows aced the street and were always kept open, and interaction with others was spontaneous, requent and dynamic. While all interviewees expressed an improvement in their quality o lie, many noted that the relationship

Figure 4.7 physical layout o interaction space in the previous and the current situation and correspond corresponding ing analytical diagram

between neighbours is now weaker and lives are more DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 035

Dhandesh, 14 years, BJ “We play on the ground oor o the building but oten when we are running around we all 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 preerred communal areas were the open spaces on the ground oor interspersed between buildings. Despite the evident need by residents or such social gathering spaces, the design o these areas has been neglected in terms o both quality and unctionality. Regarding the rst, well constructed, good quality communal space is important to improve imp rove social cohesion among residents, Figure 4.8 The quality o communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) and correspond corresponding ing analytical analytical diagram

especially children as illustrated in Figure 4.8. Policy ails to consider the quality o such spaces around SRA buildings, an important issue as such areas change and adapt through time. In terms o unctionality, people spoke o and were observed to use the space within the Bharat Janata building compound in many dierent ways, as illustrated in Figure 4.9. While many children play on the t he ground oor, in Rajiv Indira (Figure 4.10) most adults use the open corridors to socialise, perhaps reecting the transitory nature o the rst space as it is next to the ‘edge’ o Dharavi and located on a main path inside. Both in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira the diversity o activities and the multiplicity o use o such communal spaces in terms o unctionality o design are not recognised at the policy level.


Figure 4.9 The use o communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) with current plan location and corresponding analyti cal diagram

Figure 4.10 The use o communal space around the building (Rajiv Indira) with current plan location and correspondin corresponding g analytical diagram

DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism

Participation in design When

interviewees

emerges as a key critique and nding o our analysis. were

asked

about

their

In additional interviews with members o SPARC it was

involvement in the design process, the majority

made clear that primary concern in these pilot projects

answered positively positively (example in Figure 4.11). 4.11). Yet as

was re-housing citizens. Spatial design was treated with

these responses were unpacked, it became clear that the

a standard, acceptable approach by local architects that

concept o ‘participation’ in regards to design o units was

were appointed or their experience and sensibility to

more appropriately dened as ‘inorming’. In the case o

the area and situation. While recognizing the learning

Rajiv Indira, the residents were presented our (4) options

curve involved in pilot projects, especially those

by the architects beore one was selected by the Society

undertaken by a grassroots initiative, we assert that

Committee. In Bharat Janata, only one unit option was

greater attention be given to spatial needs that arise

provided. Virtually all the residents interviewed regard

rom multiplicity o use. The idea o participation is deep

the architect as expert and thereore ail to recognize their

with subjective situational interpretations. interpretations. Re-housing

potential voice in the design process. The majority o the

people may have been the primary objective o SPARC

women spoken to had little or no direct knowledge o

in these cases, though when dealing with the physical

the process, having been passively inormed o meeting

construction o a building, the design and impact it has

results by their husbands.

on social progress and commercial sustainability, must

While recognizing the contributions and mobilizing

not be relegated.

eorts o the Alliance, it is this disregard or particular

On a wider scale, overall analysis illustrates that SRA

attention to spatial use and diversity o residents that

policy ails to consider the true involvement o people in the design process, a undamental component used to identiy the diversity o requirements within the community. The lack o appropriate inclusion into the design process renders an inexible policy and thus a holistically inappropriate provision o space. An emerging consequence seen in the two case studies and other SRA projects is that people are orced to continuously adapt a standardized space to meet their amily 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 o the housing cooperative and then we put the plan on the wall so the community could see it.”

4.3 Urban analysis o Chambda Baazar Chambda Bazaar, strategically located at the center o Dharavi, has been the locus o growth o commercial clusters or over a century, as illustrated in (Figure 4.12a,b,c). At present the inormality and the strategic location o the district oers exibility o space and livelihoods, attracting migrant populations o dierent regions, cultures and religions. A unique character district with a diverse mix o livelihoods unctioning at dierent scales o the business network and having varying spatial demands, the urban analysis unpacks issues o urban density, land use and its relationship to

Figure 4.11 Interview photos (with the community leader o Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram surrounding the question o participation in design


livelihoods.

Location and Accessibility: The triangular area dening 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 o the city: three railway stations are ound 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

Density and Land use: Chambda Bazaar

currently has a high residential tenement density o 706 Figure 4.12a Dharavi development in 1933 “Bombay Guide Map Including Parts o Salsette”: Map by Surveyor General o India, showing urther increased built orm.

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 o India, showing High Density built orm 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 o built orm.

Figure 4.14 Land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar


Open spaces:

Activities including community

gatherings, play areas, estivals 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, a ctor, ound to be either the local political party part y ofce, youth club, place o worship, or religious community. Stakeholders o such spaces were quite positive, valuing them as part o their recreational lie and living area or the community. They are mostly covered and paved to protect p rotect rom monsoon ooding and heat, as well as well lit and under constant community surveillance, perceived to be sae by both women and children. The network o open spaces is discontinuous, guided through labyrinth streets. dozen o ‘nagars’ or neighborhoods.

Figure 4.15b Activities around shared open space

Figure 4.15a Use o open space


4.4 Anticipated impact o in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Baazar 4.4.1 Commercial activity A diverse spectrum o commercial activities was encountered in Chambda Baazar, ranging rom 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 o production (Figure 4.16). Otherwise they cater to the local market and are dependent on customers inside Dharavi. The size o the enterprise oten depends on both the trade and the level o networks in which they are situated. The location o the business was dependent upon the local entrepreneurs who preerred working in clusters according to their regional and/or religious background. The overall aspiration o the commercial enterprise owners was to retain their existing ow o goods and network o customers.

The tanned leather rom Chennai is processed within Dharavi.

Final product o leather ( leather jackets) is sold Outside o Dharavi

The tanned leather rom Chennai is processed within Dharavi.

Customer networks throughout India

Figure 4.16 Production chain at various geographical scales


small scale candy shop

medium scale embroidery embroide ry shop

large scale bakery

Figure 4.17 Various scales o commercial enterprise

Diversity o commercial activities and multiplicity o space

Excluded users o space Ofcial documents and interviews made evident the

Commercial activities within Chambda Baazar have

act that the Dharavi Redevelopment Plan (DRP) does

thrived because o their exibility, diversity, adaptability

not recognise the rights o renters, transient tenants nor

and multiplicity in the present inormal scenario.

the multiplicity o uses o one structure by amilies or

Enterprises researched illustrate how, over generations,

enterprises. At present a large section o the t he commercial

small to medium scale businesses such as gem and

activities in Chambda Baazar are reliant on migrant

jewellery makers have leveraged their locational

workers who work or ree or nominal remuneration, such

advantage and responded to local demand while, large

as the provision o ood and shelter. Multiple business

scale bakery owners, or example, have clustered and

owners living within Dharavi oten give dormitory spaces

diversied their commercial activities (Figure 4.17). Such

or these transient workers the within their commercial

cases demonstrate the ability o individuals driving

clusters (Figure 4.18). Most single enterprise owners are

commercial activities, in terms o nancial, physical and

reliant on skilled workers and provide them with ood as

human resources, to adapt, diversiy and transorm their

well as shelter in close vicinity to the shop. The workers

enterprises in order to secure uture benets. b enets.

are dependent on public amenities provided within the

Yet the SRA policy and the DRP does not recognise the

cluster. Such exible conditions o work-live and the

potential nancial power o these enterprises to pay or

adaptations owners have made through time to address

the multiple spatial requirements necessary to support

their labourers’ needs is not addressed in SRA policy.

their diverse economic network to secure their business in the uture. 042 DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism

Live and work tenements o 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 o community involvement involvement Interviews with Chambda Baazar commercial owners illustrated a lack o transparency and inormation regarding the Dharavi Redevelopment Plan (DRP), and that no attempts have been made to initiate community involvement in the plan. In absence o any organisation o workers looking ater their rights, the treatment o the workers diers 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 profts.”

no collective voice in the DRP and their uture in Dharavi depends on their employers. The vast population o migrant workers, the powerhouse Dharavi, would be orced to move out o Dharavi to live and commute to work, which implies the increases labour price with urther consequences. The SRA policy, dening string ent criteria or inclusion in the project, might disrupt the smooth unctioning economic network o Dharavi, a situation that takes priority over domestic needs. DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 043

Figure 4.19 Dierent scale home-based commercial

Many home based commercial activities are one step in a larger network o production. In many cases the materials, are taken rom and returned to the same workshop.

4.4.2 Home based commercial activity Diversity o home-based activities Small scale home-based commercial activities ound in Chambda Bazaar are usually undertaken by women to supplement the main income o the household, where their activities orm one step in a larger chain o production (Figure 4.19). These production chains, that have dierent scales o manuacturing, benet rom the diversity and exibility o the social networks existing in the area, as employers can inormally ask women to nish the work quicker than usual or to share work with riends and neighbours i difcult schedules have to be met. This kind o exibility allows the workshops to run more efciently and highlights the current mutually benecial organisational network, sustained by inormal, long-standing relationships built on reliance and trust between employers and employees. Relocation o the workshops or ormalisation o these networks will reduce exibility and may hinder the growth o the existing diverse networks. SRA policy ails to understand the diversity and exibility o space and networks that homebased commercial activities require. 044 DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism

medium scale Household: Fakir Ahmed Azaad

small scale Household: Bilkis

Mr Fakir Ahmed Azaad’s runs a thriving tabla making business. Each tabla takes 3 days to make and sells or Rs. 3000-4000. Mr. Azaad’s children work as his apprentices will inherit it in the uture. Mrs. Bilkis’s embroidery embroidery work is mainly done to supplement the main income o the household and she earns Rs. 2 per nished piece that she brings rom the workshop.

Multiplicity o Spaces EXPERIENCED REALITY

Residential and commercial tenements are oten very small and have a multiplicity o co-existing uses, or example as a shop, or 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 Dierent scale home-based commercial

such practices, the situation is ar rom convenient. The variations o activities in single spaces gives open spaces a diverse character as demonstrated by Figure 4.21. The multiplicity o use o space highlights the adaptation that has taken place in response to the lack o space as well as inrastructure. While younger people nd communal spaces to be enjoyable and colorul and providing an opportunity to socialise, older people nd it difcult to climb up and down very steep stairs many times a day

Larger scale traditional home-based businesses run

in order to do daily chores. Currently, the low-rise homes

by entire amilies that can be comparable to a medium

allow residents to adapt their homes to the needs o their

scale commercial enterprise also exist in Chambda

amily. Marriages result in more amily members and it is

Bazaar. Working rom home, amilies can capitalise on

common to extend the current house by building another a nother

the contribution o all amily members; this adaptation

room on top or adjacent to it. Such options will not exist

to maximise human resources is critical or successully

in high-rise dwellings and amilies could potentially get

sustaining larger scale home-based activities, as

ragmented, as members o the same amily will have to

illustrated by the stories in (Figure 4.20).

nd alternate housing options. DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 045

Recognition o diverse activities Policy also underestimates the current multiplicity o spaces. For instance, the DRP guidelines aim to provide 6% commercial space in each building that is supposed to accommodate the commercial activities o all residents o 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

Papad makers use communal open spaces or commercial activites

be sustained in such circumstances. A small scale home-based activity that is substantially common is papad making. Currently the papad makers have the exibility 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.

Residents have easy access to groud oor and open spaces

Extention o households chores into open spaces

Figure 4.21a photos showing diversity o open space- commercial/residential commercial/residential

EXPERIENCED REALITY

ANTICIPATED IMPACT

Figure 4.21b analytical diagrams- experienced experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (diverse spatial use) Residential and commercial commercial tenements are oten very small and are used or shops, daily living, work space and storage at the same time, extending many activities like to the outside o the main structure.


4.5 Summary o analysis and fndings: moving into

rather than incorporated into the plans. While these

the Scenarios

observations are arguably the responsibility o a particular

The ability to determine ones own uture is a key

projects’ inception, they represent the general lack o

aspect o transormation. Our research in Rajiv Indira,

policy attention. On-site research in Chambda Bazaar

Bharat Janata and Chambda Bazaar emphasises this

revealed urther disparities in the act that many people

point, having revealed the socio-economic capacity to

were unclear as to the specicities o the DRP and the

adapt spatially, thus sustaining activities and livelihoods.

potential implications it held or them. In this case, the

Adaptability was ound to be high and inherent amongst

desire or broader inormative mechanisms is essential

all amilies and enterprises interviewed, despite the vast

alongside more attentive processes o inclusion.

degree o diversity.

The overall aspiration o the people towards policy

Dharavi, known or its diverse productive nature,

is to acilitate a transormation that benets uture

contains a widespread international network heavily

generations. Spatial environment, though important

dependent on skilled and unskilled migrant workers

was a secondary concern behind maintaining mainta ining livelihoods

and entrepreneurs. Their exclusion rom SRA policies

and promoting better educational prospects. Analysis

and the DRP not only carries individual implications,

has shown a resiliency o people to adapt challenges

but also a ear in the decreasing availability o cheap

created by new situations and to expand their social

labor, leading to an increase in the overall cost o the

and economic capacities. The limits o their capacity,

production. A major consequence here lies in the

however, call or greater inclusion amongst the policy-

spectrum o nancial capacity o Dharavi, as certain

making processes that in turn regulate social and spatial

wealthier citizens and potential investors could take

transormation. The ollowing scenarios illustrate a

their business elsewhere thus dissolving the rich

shiting o our analysis and ndings towards inorming

economy o the area.

proposals that conceptually address these notions o

A signicant aspect o this stimulated economy

inclusion and participation around policy, space and

are home-based livelihood activities, where social and

livelihoods in order to address the adaptability, adapt ability, exibility,

economic practices unold within multi-unctional

multiplicity and diversity within urban redevelopment.

spaces, branding the dwelling with an important dual value. Beyond the physical and productive values, an emotional investment exists that creates a sense o belonging in the residents. This is especially evident in older nagars such as Chambda Bazaar where dwellings have stood or more than three generations, symbolising strong amily heritage. However, current policies lack sensitivity in regards to historical value and more importantly the recognition o rights in terms o tenured land ownership. Perhaps more central to our analytical ramework and conceptual ramework in terms o policy limitations is the lack o inclusionary processes. The ailure o nontransparent policy provisions have created disparity between authorities and citizens. In regards to the spatial design o the SRA projects studied, there appeared to be a general lack o clear participatory strategy. People were inormed about the project, but not necessarily involved in their schematic production, thus the multiplicities and diversities o spatial use and networks were largely ignored. The levels o adaptability

REFERENCES: Mukhija Vinit, 2003. Squatters as developers. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. London. Nirman website, n.d. Rajiv Indira Suryodaya and Ganga housing society, Mumbai. (http://www.Ho (http://www.Homeless meless International International,, 2008. 2008. Cli Annual review 08. Astwood Design Consultancy.) Kantha Binti, n.d. Slum rehabilitation in Bharat Janata housing coopera cooperative tive project. SPARC. Unpublished.

and exibility were transerred to the individuals alone DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 047

05 Chapter BRIDGING THE GAP: RATIONALE RA TIONALE FOR THE SCENARIOS SCENAR IOS

At the critical point o dening the conceptual approach o our proposals, based on our analysis, ndings and vision, a signicant disparity became evident in the choice o where these should be ocused. Finding a balance between the DRP vision and the Alternative Visions was obviously critical but this was primarily constrained by the act that the DRP vision is currently in the process o being implemented.

he he analysis and ndings, based on our eld epe�

such as political interest, real estate markets and global

rience in Dharavi and our parallel engagement with the

nancial markets. Under the unication o the DRP all

various actors through presentations and discussions,

these dominant orces act holistically towards imple�

provided an adequate platorm to identiy key areas or

menting transormation. On the opposite end o the

conceptualising potential interventions. hese key areas

DRP is what we term Alternative Visions, the resistant

include the need to increase community participation

orces representing the multiplicity o interests includ�

at multiple levels o the transormation process, and to

ing NGOs, research institutions as well as the enormous

recognise the divergent spatial and policy needs to ac�

diversity o the citizens o Dharavi, including established

commodate livelihoods alongside a wider range o fe�

communities, landlords, local businessmen, residents,

ible and adaptive spatial typologies based on the t he diverse

migrant workers and religious groups, to name a ew.

needs and capacities o Dharavi’s citizens. citizens.

O critical signicance is the ragmented nature o these visions in comparison to the unied ront presented by

At the critical point o dening the conceptual ap�

the DRP.

proach o our proposals, based on our analysis, ndings and vision, a signicant disparity became evident in the

Finding a balance between the DRP vision and the

choice o where these should be ocused. As illustrated in

Alternative Visions was obviously critical but this was

Figure 5.1, conceptually we identied two polarised e�

primarily constrained by the act that the DRP vision

tents o Dharavi’s contestation, the rst represented by

is currently in the process o being implemented. We

the DRP vision. his vision is infuenced by diverse orces

ound that many o our conceptual proposals required required a

Figure 5.1 Setting the Scenario

050 DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism

undamental shit away rom some directions being taken by the DRP, while other proposals could be adapted into the already initiated ramework o transormation being implemented by the DRP. his process led us to conceive the need or two scenar� ios: Scenario 1: 1: his Scenario is intended to be adapted into

the DRP within its current ramework or transormation. It heeds and adheres to all o the key principles instilled in the DRP, DRP, such as the maintenance o the ve developer sectors, the global Floor Space Inde o 4, the modern� istic podium typology o spatial massing and the other planning and design guidelines. It seeks to improve the structures o citizen representation and participation within the eisting ramework o the DRP and it inuses ndings rom the eld towards meeting spatially diverse livelihood needs. Scenario 2: 2: his Scenario aims to present an alternative

scenario that is not completely limited by the eacting stipulations o eisting DRP policy ramework. It address� es what elements change and justies such alterations, and intends to nd an entry point that incorporates the requirements and aspirations o the citizens o Dharavi as highlighted in our analysis and ndings, whilst maintain� ing a level o intention to act opportunistically to benet Mumbai as a whole.

DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 051

06 Chapter THE SCENARIOS

Scenario 01 The Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Project Scenario 02 The BUDD Charette: Towards Towards an Alternative Vision

The primary argument behind our alternative vision challenges the singularity o the urban and architectural orm proposed, whilst the secondary argument comes as a direct response to the policies o exclusion o the DRP. DRP. As we argue or policies to be inormed by the reality o specic places, we propose a progressive approach to transormation that is directly linked with the context, and that prioritises the community beore other stakeholders.

06 Chapter

Scenario 01

The Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Project Towards Citizen Participation in the DRP Spatial Transformation Transformation in the DRP: Beyond Provision, Towards Towards Adaption & Enablement


6.1.1 Towards Citizen Participation in the DRP Citizen participation is the involvement or cooperation

The proposals presented as part o Scenario 1

o citizen groups, bodies or organisations with the state

have been developed or adaption and inclusion

or development agencies (Desai, 1995). The role o citizen

into the Dharavi Redevelopment Project’s (DRP)

inclusion in a process claimed a

process and policy ramework as it currently

widely, ranging rom their manipulation by dominant

exists. It adheres to the current undamental undamental

orces to citizens creating and driving the transormative

principles o ve Developer Sectors, a FSI o

process.

s participatory can vary

our and Podium Spatial Typology and oers

Our understanding o participation as a staircase, as

two main proposals or integration into the

illustrated in Figure 6.1, is inormed by Arnstein’s (1969)

DRP. The rst regards the inclusion o steps

Ladder o Citizen Participation and the International

towards increased citizen participation in the

Association o Public Participation. The diagram illustrates

DRP transormation process, while the second

the lowest level o participation as manipulation, where

seeks to respond to our analysis or the need

dominant powers distort citizens’ engagement in the

to diversiy basic spatial provisions towards

process (Slocum, 1995). The highest orm o par ticipation,

enabling long term fexibility and adaption

empowerment, enables a sense o sel-reliance on skills

o use based on an acknowledgement o the

and abilities and is achieved when citizens themselves

diverse needs and capacities o the residents o

are deeply and meaningully engaged in elaborating

Dharavi.

the transormative process. While ‘manipulation’ and ‘empowerment’ ‘empow erment’ represent the ends o the spectrum, there are numerous steps in between. Overall participation should be transparent, with those involved being not only

Figure 6.1 Varying Degrees o Participa Participation tion


inormed, but included at some level in the elaboration o the process.

Having been present at a point in the process where the EAC has been presented with the DRPs intention o

Thus ar the DRP process had a contested path towards

implementing the modernistic ‘podium’ ‘podium’spatial typology

achieving a platorm or appropriate citizen participation. par ticipation.

it became evident to us that the EAC still ace substantial

Initially the DRP adopted no orm o citizen representation

challenges in trying to negotiate the direction or

in implementing its vision or transormation in Dharavi. It

transormation being carried by the DPR. There is a

showed no intent o altering this stance and was pushed

poignant note on contestation o the transormation

to do so ater continuous pressure was placed on the th e state

process: While the EAC has made signicant headway

and central government by several groups consisting o

in initiating its own capacity or negotiating the path o

local civil and business organisations, NGOs, academics

the DRP, DRP, it now has to contend rom within, the t he reality o

and activists who campaigned relentlessly or a rethinking

its disproportionate power share in the transormation

o the DRP process and the inclusion o citizen rights

process.

and representation in the transormation process (Patel & Arputham 2008). The outcome o such pressure has

In keeping with this Scenario’s intent o working

been the appointment o the Expert Advisory Committee

within the existing contextual parameters posed by

(EAC) to the DRP, DRP, as ocially recognised in January Ja nuary 2009.

the DRP, DRP, it has been assumed in principle that the latest

The DRPs engagement with this committee, committee, ormed o a

proposals or the ‘podium’typology will be implemented.

diverse cross section o proessionals, NGOs and academic

What we are proposing are potentially achievable

institutions such as KRVIA, represents the rst major step

methods o citizen participation in this already initiated

in achieving a degree o citizen participation in the DRP,

implementation process, that will look to take steps up

although it remains that signicant scope still exists or

the conceptual model o citizen participation (g 6.1)

an improvement in broader-based citizen engagement. In the current context o the DRP two possible steps Figure 6.2 exclusionary exclusionary nature o the DRP

exist. The rst step is obviously quite limited in terms o the degree o participation that can realistically be achieved due to the advanced status o the master planning process. Many dening decisions to date have been made with no citizen engagement. Thus in the context o the current state o the DRP the rst orm o participation that can be reached is one o ‘Inorming’, this takes the rst step o creating transparency o the transormation process and addressing the apprehensions towards change within the community based on their misunderstanding o the DRPs intentions. Key Constraint to Participation in the DRP: Who participates? Under the current DRP ramework, ‘eligible’ participants or 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’ ‘ineligible’ under the DRP DRP,, including migrant workers, unregistered residents, tenants or those who became residents o Dharavi subsequent to the cut o date, are thus constricted in


Figure 6.3 Means o Design Communication

their role o the participatory rocesses proposed or the

the aim is to address a reasonable quantity o people in

DRP.. While these ‘eligible’ and ‘ineligi DRP ‘ineligible’ ble’ status statuses, es, as

an environment intimate enough to encourage people

depicted in Figure 6.2, may technically be the case, we

to voice their concerns and openly ask questions. It is

strongly believe that those who are ineligible to receive

also critical that the inormation is stated in a way that

housing at no cost under the scheme should also be part

is understandable to those attending the meetings, thus

o the inormation session. Such individuals represent an

use o pamphlets and architectural models m odels can be useul

important segment o the population that th at will continue

tools (Figure 6.3).

to be part o Dharavi ater the implementation o the

Citizens can be made aware o these meetings

scheme, and in this sense, are stakeholders that need to

through dierent media. In the context o Dharavi, orally

be included.

communicating the details o these meeting can provide an inexpensive and eective way to create awareness. In

Step 1: Informing citizens about the DRP

addition, inormative posters outlining the topic, date and

The rst step towards citizen participation in the DRP

location o meetings can also be useul to inorm people

must be inormation provision. Our interviews in the

o these meetings. Pamphlets can be passed around to

eld illustrated that residents either had a partial idea,

share the basic inormation about the DRP, to stimulate

were misinormed or had no basic conception o the

urther discussion during meetings.

DRP intentions. The most basic orm o inorming would

An important challenge to overcome when engaging

not necessitate personable consulting orums but be

with the citizens o Dharavi pertains to the question

through ocial posters and pamphlets can be made

o accurate representation. Such elements must be

available to keep the public abreast a breast o what is occurring

delicately determined as it is crucial to ensure that a

in the DRP process. Once architectural typologies have

representative amount o interest groups are met.

been in eect designed, drawings, models and even mocked out tenements can be placed pla ced or public display

Step 2: From Informing towards Consulting and

in locations in each sector. This would build awareness

Involving Dharavi’s Dharavi’s citizen groups

and also balance expectation o what is to be provided under the DRP.

The ability to move up the stairs o citizen participation towards

consulting

involves

engagement

and

I the DRP is willing to scale up the level o inorming,

consultation with resident representative groups. Given

it could decide to engage in appropriately sized public

the constrains that exist within the DRP with recognition

presentations and orums. A potential way to inorm a

o citizen rights and representation making this step up

wide audience is by organising inormal group meetings

is obviously challenging. We have however identied

or various citizen interest groups, a crucial step to

one area where such a step would be plausible. Working

bring clarity and understanding as well as transparency

within this scenario’s stated remit o staying within the

to the process. Finding an appropriate size or the

DRP ramework, we realise that it is unlikely that the DRP

audience o such inormation sessions is important as

would want to initiate the ormation o citizen groups


particularly concerned with the transormation process.

Conclusions

However rom our eldwork we came to understand that

While we acknowledge that given the current

a host o existing resident groups already exist in Dharavi.

state at which the DRP stands, the initiation o citizen

This sector o civil society representation includes

participation may be seen as a ‘retrotted’ gesture aimed

existing social, cultural, religious and recreational groups.

at co-opting or appeasing various communities into

Within the contexts o the ramework o the existing DRP

agreeing with the directions that have been primarily

we have indentied an area o scope or consultation

decided or them. We however still believe that there is

with existing civil society groups. Sections 7.3 and 8.0

still an overwhelmingly substantial benet to be had by

in Appendix IV-A o the Dharavi Redevelopment Project

both the DRP and the residents o Dharavi i methods

Drat Modication ocuses on the inclusion o recreational

and practice o participation are introduced into the

grounds, playgrounds, gardens and park as well as welare

DRP transormation process and implemented with

halls, Balwadis, society oces and religious buildings.

transparency and genuine intent and integrity.

Consulting civil society on such areas within the current DRP plan would help better mould these areas that the

‘I know o no sae depository o the ultimate powers

DRP has already endeavoured to provide.

o society but the people themselves; and i we

A orum or participatory engagement can thus be

think them not enlightened enough to exercise

initiated in each sector once the developers and existing

their control with a wholseome discretion, the

civil society groups have been identied or these

remedy is not to take it rom them, but to inorm

designated areas. The scope o participation would be

their discretion.’

dened at the outset and ocused on the open space

Thomas Jeferson 1820

and communal areas identied in Sections 7.3 and 8.0 o the DRP. The actors or this engagement as identied

6.1.2 Spatial Transformation in the DRP: Beyond

in Figure 6.4 would include representatives rom the

Provision, Towards Adaption & Enablement

developer including an architect, ocials rom the DRP.

When analysing policies addressing the Dharavi

The orums could be acilitated by NGO groups and the

Redevelopment Project (DRP), the term hutment

community could be advised by academic groups such

dweller is used to classiy the status o many existing

as KRVIA. Figure 6..4 multi-actor participation diagram

citizens. Appendix IV-A o the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Drat Modication states the rights o hutment dwellers as:

‘1.1 Hutment-dwellers, in the slum or on the pavement, avement, eligible in accordance with the provisions o development Control regulation 33(10) (A) shall in exchange or their structure, be given ree o cost a residential tenement having a carpet area o 20.90 sq.mt. (225 sq.t) including balcony, bath and water closet, but excluding common areas. ‘ Figure 6..4 multi-actor participation diagram

The conceptual basis o the policy denes the status o eligible residents in the DRP by the typology o their abode, where the DRP’s spatial change is predicated on a transormation rom ‘hutments’ to ‘tenements.’ This spurred refection on the question o what occurs when a ‘Hutment Dweller’ becomes a ‘Tenement ‘Tenement Dweller’? Dweller’ ?

Figure 6.5 proposed monolithic typology o the DRP

When viewing the illustration o transormation orseen by the DRP in the Mumbai Mirror (Figure 6.5) one realises that a precedent or analysing transormation

058 DHARAVI caseo o contested contestedurbanism urbanism DHARAVI aa case

through the uture typology is already evident in

Case Study 1: Mr Hariharan

Dharavi, as its spatial abric is scattered with many high

Mr Hariharan (Figure 6.6) represents a large range o

rise buildings, some older chawl buildings but also

amilies interviewed in Rajiv Indira. He is very appreciative

many recent SRA constructed high-rise blocks. Hence

o the positive impact that the transormation rom

the unpacking o this transormation based on typology

hutment to tenement has had on himsel and a nd his amily’s

can be inormed signicantly by our eldwork analysis

lives, the most signicant benet being the improvement

in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira Housing Cooperative

o sanitation and the provision o running water in the

Societies.

home. The space he was provided in his tenement,

The ollowing three case studies highlight key ndings.

although limiting in some ways to his amily’s long term growth aspirations, is adequate or their current requirements. As a vegetable vendor at the local market, he does not rely on his residence or livelihood activities and the provision o a 225 square oot tenement has suciently served his needs and capacities.

Figure 6.6 livelihood prole in rajiv indira


Case Study 2: Mr Krishnan

children marry, with the growth accommodated in

Mr Krishnan (Figure 6.7) provides another case in

the same home. While such changes may arise in the

terms o aspirations and capacity. As a clerical worker

coming years, Mr Krishnan’s resources and capacity is

at the Mumbai Airport he has a stable and relatively

not taken into account and thus irrelevant in aording

substantial income and in turn demonstrates a much

additional space to grow. The infexibility or growth

higher capacity to invest in his in home, having spent in

beyond the 225 square eet is a critical constraint here.

excess o Rs 3 Lakh in modiying his tenement. The high

‘Hutments’ allow allow or more growth and adaptability adapt ability than

priority he places in on investing in his home is evident

the standard sized ‘tenement’. ‘tenement’.

in the exceptionally high quality o the nishes he has paid or such as the wall and foor tiling, the sliding glass partitions to the lot and modern ttings in the bathroom and kitchen. This investment is however limited to modiying the decorative aspects o his home. In terms o needs Mr Krishnan believes that the home satises his current amily size o our although apprehensions exist regarding his amily’s amily ’s growth growth potential in this home. This is a view shared with most other residents interviewed in Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata. Culturally amilies in these communities grow as



Case Study 3 Mr Subiah

They have also been unortunate in being allocated a

Mr Subiah (Figure 6.8) and his amily presented a case

top foor unit in Rajiv Indira, as the units on the top two

that explicitly highlights the need or acknowledging

foors o the building do not have the 14 oot ceilings

the reality o large scale home-based activities in

and thus lot spaces provided on the foors below. This

residential tenements. The amily o six all participate in

stemmed rom a late development in the brie o the

either the making or selling o their potato vada, with

project that required the addition o two foors to the

their 225 square oot home acting as the storage space

building. As such a lit, normally to be included in building

and preparation centre. The amily has no option but to

o this height, was not provided. The Subiah amily hence

prioritise the accommodation o their livelihood beore

have to incur a delivery cost o Rs. 300 every 10-14 days to

the needs o their own personal space. As such, pockets

carry large quantities o produce up ve storeys o stairs.

o potatoes and onions and space or grinding and

This cost is one they did not have to pay in their previous

rying equipment take up the majority o the space in

roadside hutment as they were able carry carr y the produce to

this amily’s home.

their home themselves. This capacity to pay in on average in access o Rs. 600 per month or deliveries illustrates that the amily has the ability to utilise the same amount o money per month to pay perhaps a return on a loan or additional foor space that would have served their requirements in the longterm.



Deductions Based on Case Studies

square oot residential unit as the standard basic unit

The eldwork analysis o Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata

to all eligible residents, but alongside this option oer

strengthened our apprehensions regarding the provision

the potential to purchase additional foor space to the

o a single sized typology o residential tenement t hat

provided unit.

negated the reality o diverse needs and capacities present amongst the citizens o Dharavi. The diversity within Dharavi exists as a multiplicity o not just culture and society but also needs, resources and capacities. The DRP is not refectively inormed 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 ndings on the diverse needs and capacities that exist amongst the ‘Hutment Dwellers’

Figure 6.9 possiblity or expansion under the DRP

that are to be rehoused in the DRP into tenements, we propose a range o basic spatial options that can be adapted to cater to amilies’ their divergent aspirations, capacities and needs.

Costs and Feasibility The proposal tries to balance the diverse needs and

On average amilies numbering between ve to six

capacities o communities with maintaining structural

people have to live in a single room tenement. In Rajiv

and commercial easibility. This is done by allowing

Indira the use o lot space on the lower foors provides

only two additional options each with a urther 100

amilies with some level o fexibility to adapt their

square eet (Figure 6.10). The space provided within

homes to their needs. To the average amily it aorded

the unit will remain bare and primarily the same as the

them the value o privacy between sleeping spaces

standard units, thus leaving the onus o adapting the

amongst adults and children: the obvious need or this

internal spaces to the individual owners to achieve at

spatial adaptability and fexibility to address diversity

their own pace. Hence the additional construction

and multiplicity o use is unaddressed in the current DRP DRP..

costs are limited to the extended size o the foor slab,

Indeed, urther to this is the DRP decision to not allow

the addition o two windows and a minimal amount

14 oot high lot typologies in uture buildings causes a

o additional bricks or the longer wall. This additional

critical constraint or the design o units to provide any

construction cost, because o its basic nature, should be

orm o fexibility.

aordable to residents.

While the DRP intention o increasing unit sizes to

In a conversation with a senior DRP ocial, such

269 square eet internally and providing a balcony o 30

a solution was deemed a ‘win-win situation’because

square eet is a step in the right direction, this one size

i people paid or the building that cost it would not

will still never adhere to the diverse long terms spatial

be need to be recouped by the developer, hence the

needs o the majority o aected amilies.

amount o FSI granted to oset building costs would be somewhat curtailed. He also stated that the additional

Options for growth

foor space could be provided at a subsidised rate o Rs.

The DRP induced constraint or individual units to have

300 per square oot. For the purposes o our proposal

ceilings not higher than 8 eet means that this scenario

we have increased this gure to Rs. 400 per. This equates

investigates only lateral growth options (Figure 6.9). The

to a cost o Rs. 40 000 and Rs. 80 000 or 100 square eet

premise o the proposal is to provide the provisional 300

and 200 square eet respectively.


Figure 6.10 options to purchase additional space

Figure 6.11 enabling spatial proposals


Design

an intermediary phase that precedes adaptation to the

The generic design diagrams presented in Figure

habitual environment that is provided. The opportunity

6.11 are based on the unit designs used in Bharat Janata.

exists within the DRP to allow or this adaptation phase

They are not proposed to remain the same but attempt

to be enabling in the long term to the citizens o Dharavi.

to illustrate the principle o growth potential rom the

To T o do so requires acknowledging the diversity that exists

additional foor space. The impact o having dierent

culturally, socially and economically amongst residents

sized units will aect the overall design o the buildings,

and allowing them the room or adaptation and growth.

but this is seen as well within the potential o architects

Provision without fexibility removes the potential or

to derive buildings that accommodate this larger unit

enablement and reduces long-term sustainability.

typology using modular design principles to maintain the structural easibility. Flexibility and Enablement The hypothesis o staircase to participation presented at the outset or this scenario illustrates the undamental constraints to participation under the current DRP plan. By maintaining the provision o the single type o type o tenement, the most that can be accomplished is inorming residents o what their allocated residence would resemble. Adopting the proposal to option in additional foor space provides the potential to take signicant steps up the ladder. By allowing the process to recognise diverse capacities and needs, the DRP process would be moving towards the threshold o ‘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 o the diverse capacity o people within Dharavi makes this proposal viable. Based on the case studies rom Rajiv Indira that we have identied we can assume that or instance a person such as Mr M r Krishnan who invested 3 Lakhs on decorative modications to his home would have opted to take the t he extra 200 square eet option and had sucient room to adapt the th e space or his uture extended amily. Or in the case o Mr Subia the Rs600 per month that now being spent on delivery could have been directed to towards paying or some much needed additional space to accommodate his amily’s home based activity and living requirements. It must be recognised recognised that the process o transormation in the DPR does not stop ater the provision o standardised tenements to hutment dwellers. It is merely


06 Chapter

Scenario 02

The BUDD Charette: Towards Towards an Alternative Vision Revisiting the Vision The Concept Redevelopment Strategies Process of Citizen Involvement Catalogue


1988), which recognizes that th at the ‘development ‘development o slums has to be through the participation o people and their local leaders’ (Sharma (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 ramework in place, without being unconditionally limited

Limitations of the Proposal Whilst this alternative scenario deends the need or a pluralistic approach to design, it does not tackle the issues o the delivery system. Although the discourse supporting a need o plural methods o provision

by it. Instead o developing developing a plan that stands stands

(Keivani & Werna, 2001) has became widely accepted,

completely outside the embedded ramework,

we believe this concept to be too detached rom the

the proposal is set halway between theoretical

ramework and policies in place to be included in a

notionsthatsupportgrassrootstransormation

realistic alternative vision.

and the very real pressure coming rom the city level. It is intended as a response in a process o negotiation.

As an urban development proposal, the vision presented in this section does not represent an end result, but rather the key elements o a process. The visual support ound in this section thus t hus aims to provide explanations to the concepts put orward, and is by no means illustrative o denitive urban and architectural

Presentation For this purpose, the ethos conceptualised in this scenario comes as an answer to the contested elements o the DRP. DRP. The primary argument behind our alternative alternat ive

orms. We are thereby presenting an urban planning intervention in an alterative way (Patel, 1997: 822) and in doing so, departing rom the conventional master plan ormat.

vision challenges the singularity o the urban and architectural orm proposed, whilst the secondary argument comes as a direct response to the policies o exclusion o the DRP. Our emergent vision o Dharavi is one that recognises the multidimensionality o the modes o tenure in Dharavi. Our understanding o ‘Urban transormation’ as the evolution and production o space in direct response to the converging orces o external actors and the internal needs o the people and their diverse livelihoods, stands as the central element o our proposal. This denition o a propitious transormative process disputes the DRP’s basis and priorities. We perceive the multiple needs o the community as paramount, thus explaining why our programme aims to incorporate the city needs within Dharavi such as the creation o new residential stock, the extension o the BKC as a growing nancial centre, new commercial development, etc. instead o trying to orce the needs o Dharavi into a plan which is clearly detached rom the current setting. Although this strategy seems to distance itsel rom the policy ramework supporting the current plans or Dharavi’s redevelopment, is actually in line with the National Housing Policy 066 DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism

6.2.1 Revisiting the Vision As part o our initial vision o Dharavi as a place with a unique, multiple and dynamic character, where global demands and local aspirations can be merged together and the production o new urban orms are consciously integrated within fexible contexts, the vision o BUDD Charrette proposal can be divided into ve challenging orientations and objectives:

I. Bettering the system o provision to meet basic needs in Dharavi, to mitigate the problematic living conditions as experienced by the most vulnerable sectors o the community. II. Assuring the prosperity o an environment that recognises the livelihoods o the citizens o Dharavi, to allow the urban orm to be fexible to diverse and changing needs by adapting to them through time. III.

Equipping

Dharavi

with

a

political

ramework which supports the creation o a

physical environment highlighting the capacity,

contrasting and complimentary conceptual strategies.

diversity and resilience o the community in

The concept supports our denition o transormation

place, in order to assure the progression o its

while trying to manoeuvre within the restrictive

character.

ramework o the DRP. The map ound in Figure 6.12, inspired by our

IV. Integrating elements o the ormal city into

vision o Dharavi, aims to conceptualise our proposed

Dharavi so as to dilute the dierences between

interventions:

the ‘ormal’ and ‘inormal’ city to ultimately

• Opening Dharavi to Mumbai, as illustrated by the

eliminate the stigma associated with Dharavi.

burgundy arrows • Blending in the dierences between the ‘formal’ and

V. Integrating development areas that cater

‘inormal’ city, as illustrated by the smaller green and

to the needs o the middle-class and private

yellow arrows

market, so as to reconcile the needs o

• Creating high-density zones at strategic

Mumbai and those o Dharavi while making

points in Dharavi (near the three train stations located

the cross-subsidisation o the redevelopment

around Dharavi, and near the Bandra Kurla Complex),

projects possible.

where high-rise structures intended or the private sector will be located • Conservation of the vernacular character charac ter of the historical/

6.2.2 The Concept In order to realise our objectives as stated in our

central zone o Dharavi by proposing interventions inspired by existing urban orms

revisited vision, we have developed a concept that

• Introducing a transitional zone between Dharavi’s

recognises the need or pluralism and inclusion. The

historic centre and the proposed high density zone

wide range o solutions produced is refective o our

to harmonise the cityscape while allowing or vertical redevelopment schemes to be strategically located.

Figure 6.12 conceptual con ceptual proposals map


To achieve this, the concept presented in this section

concept proposes options that refect the needs o

diverges rom the DRP in 4 important ways:

the current citizens o Dharavi, the migrants and those

I. Abandonment o 5 sector division:

o Mumbai as a whole, instead o a ‘one size ts all’

This departure rom the DRP attempts to

approach.

successully translate the unique social, cultural,

Based on the analysis o multiple ndings gathered

economic and spatial character o each nagar

in the eld, our program recognises our broader

into the proposal, building on existing resources.

architectural typologies and associates each o them with

It allows or development that recognises Dharavi

a number o morphological typologies currently existing

as one place instead o an amalgamation o 5

in Dharavi. The idea is rst to link each architectural t ype

sub-zones. It also allows or a development that

to a specic unction, such as home-based economies,

is incremental and inormed by its own process as

manuacturing activities, residential units, and so orth,

opposed to the proposed model which has been

and second, to establish coupling between architectural

created to allow or the simultaneous development

orms and urban layouts (morphological typologies).

o ve zones by as many actors, all in isolation rom one another.

These relationships between urban and building orms are much less diametrical as we acknowledge that architectural orms should be associated with as

II. Abandonment o the FSI regulatory tool:

many types o urban urb an tissues as possible (Figure 6.13). We We

The FSI regulatory tool in place, which prescribes

judge this to be especially important or the residential

a global foor space index o 4.0 or the whole

units as we recognise the importance o exterior spaces

o Dharavi, presents unnecessary constraints

and their dierent uses among dierent communities.

and backs up unsupportable densities. It is not

The variant architectural types are associated with a

refective o the needs or reality o Dharavi, but

range o morphological tissues, allowing an array o

rather o the interests o the private sector.

spatial congurations. Policy Matrix

III. Recognition o the migrants living and working

In order to recognise and understand the complex

in Dharavi:

policy environment created by the DRP, we have

This addition to the plan comes as a response to

designed a policy matrix in which each o our our

our recognition o the role o migrants in Dharavi’s

proposals are placed, highlighting the new condition o

complex and diverse lexis. It plans or the th e needs o

policy needed making evident our position in contrast

the most vulnerable portion o the population and

to the current policy sphere

in this sense it also pertains to the goal behind the SRA to eliminate slums in Mumbai.

6.2.4 Process of Citizen Involvement Beore the elaboration o a detailed plan or the

IV. Redenition o the role o the community in the

redevelopment o Dharavi, it is essential to develop

planning and redevelopment:

options that address the needs o the citizens therein.

This second addition to the current plan is proposed

These options should come as a result o direct eld

in order to assure that the development o Dharavi

observations, surveys and exchanges, and the direct

is representative o the true needs and aspirations

involvement o the community (Figure 6.14). The

o the community. It ensures the sustainability o

question o participation introduces complexities as it

what is being provided while ostering eelings o

ventures into integrating grassroots participation in a

ownership by the community in regards to both

ramework that operates rom the top-down. The scale

the product and the process.

o the project brings about a new level o complexity. The scheme we have developed to implicate citizens

6.2.3 Redevelopment Strategies

in the process has required concessions in order to be

As recognition o the multidimensional character o

achievable. It is separated into three dierent phases,

the needs o the citizens o Dharavi, our redevelopment

each o them associated with a dierent time rame and

strategies propose a wide range o interventions. The

level o citizen involvement:


Figure 6.13 development developme nt strategy schema The main morphological typologies typologies ound in Dharavi will be conserved in the central zone in order to minimise the disruption o the milieu. Although changes o the urban orm will occur occur,, our intention is to allow the community to continue living in a place where the urban tissue and layout o open spaces refects the needs as well or better than it currently does.

Figure 6.14 process o community involvement


I. First Stage: The rst stage starts with research and analysis by a proessional team (NGO, development practitioners; internal or external to the community). These ndings will then inorm the design and layout options which architects and planners will elaborate and develop. The design and creation o a wide range o 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 o a variety o communities. The interactions at this phase are circular and continuous. The citizen representatives and the designers will work as a team to elaborate options, beore presenting them to other citizens and communities.

First stage

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 t hat ts his/her needs. Firstly, citizens will decide which architectural typology ts 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 or each type, as shown in Figure 6.15. In addition, ull-scale model units (proto-types) will be built and opened to the public to visit. Each amily will then be given the opportunity to choose a unit layout. In this stage, the unit recipients will also make explicit their preerence in term o urban layout (morphological typology). III. Third Stage:

Second stage

In the last stage o this process o citizen involvement, the preerences o the people will be b e compiled. With this inormation, the designers (architects + planners) will develop a plan or Dharavi that accommodates a ccommodates the needs and choices o citizens. The proportion o each typology and layout to be built will be directly inormed by the previous stage.

Third stage


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 o the creation o zones that will be used or dierent architectural types. The size and limits o these zones should vary depending on the needs and choices o the community (see Second stage o the ‘Process ‘Process o Community Involvement’ Involvement’ section). The intention o this map is to illustrate where the private development (high-rise) should be located,, while showing how t he cityscape will be harmonized between the high-rise and low-rise zones through the use o mid-rise units. located


6.2.5 Catalogue As our proposal recognises the need or orms that vary according to unctions, we have developed our typologies or our conceptual catalogue as illustrated in (Figure 6.16) A. Home-Based Units

Description This is a low-density typology, with buildings ranging rom G+3 to G+5. They are located in inner areas o Dharavi in order to preserve the existing streetscape. The typology ocuses on households with home-based businesses, and is concentrated in the southern area o Chambda Bazaar.

Current Situation The proposal keeps the ground foor as retail use. It

Figure 6.17 current situation

can be used by individual owners or selling products, or it can be rented out to other tenants (Figure 6.17). The shop ronts along the street are intended to preserve the street view o Chambda Bazaar, while the rst foor holds the living space – a 300 square oot unit. This typology is designed to sustain the current livelihoods o residents with home-based activities. From the analysis, some o 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 foor to be built.

Concept The undamental concept o this typology is to separate the working space rom the living space (Figure 6.18). However, instead o dividing the working space

Figure 6.18 proposed space-use arrangement

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 or many purposes. This means that when some amily members are working, others cannot sleep or be involved in other amily activities. The mezzanine foor is proposed to create a vertical separation while providing privacy to some o the amily members. The household can use the mezzanine as working space with the rst foor as living space or vice versa.


Figure 6.19 Place policy matrix

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 o 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 oot headroom proposed in the DRP or commercial units. The retail spaces are directly on the ground foor instead o raised on the podium level, and the layout is designed in a collaborative manner with community representatives and the leaders o some o the home based industries. Households can then choose their desired layout rom several options. B. Work-Based Units Figure 6.20 migrant’s use o space

Description

sale

This typology varies rom G+3 to G+4 in height and is designed or small, medium and large manuacturing

raw material

production

industries in Dharavi and their workers. The concept behind this typology is to recognise the needs o these thriving industries, which are central to Dharavi’s unctioning. It proposes the grouping o small industries by including the retail, production and living aspect o

Figure 6.21 production Networks

these industries in the spatial design. These units will be located in the lowest density zone o Dharavi. Inspired by the existing manuacturing clusters in Dharavi, these work-based clusters will most oten be organised around open spaces.

Current Situation Dharavi’s economy is uelled by small and medium industries, which oten process goods rom raw

Figure 6.22 separation o spatial use

materials to the nal product. Oten owned by local residents, these industries mainly employ migrants who come to Mumbai or work to earn money then sent back to their villages. More oten 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 oten grouped by phases o 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 rom raw materials to end products ready to


be sold. Although this cost is rather minimal and the

C. High-Rise (Rehabilitation)

distances travelled are small, it adds up to signicant sums in this setting o nancial constraints. What is more, these numerous deliveries add pressure and congestion to already strained transportation inrastructure.

Description This typology varies rom G+5 to G+7 in height and aims to house rehabilitated amilies. These mid-rise buildings will be located near the edges o Dharavi,

Concept The concept is to spatially group sub-industries and separate spatial uses at the scale o the units. At the scale

serving as a buer zone between the high rise buildings near train stations and the low rise units in the centre o Dharavi.

o Dharavi, we are proposing the creation o clusters where all phases o production are integrated. This would

Current Situation

minimise the costs o the nal goods, while allowing these

This typology has emerged or two major purposes,

small industries to gain recognition by partnering with

the rst o which is to improve the living conditions

the other members o the same industry (Figure 6.21).

o the current inhabitants. The living conditions are

At the scale o the unit itsel, our concept suggests a

not desirable at the moment, as hutment dwellers

vertical segregation o unction within each work-based

live in overcrowded houses with inadequate basic

cluster. The ground foor will be reserved or direct resale

inrastructure, both physical and social. Piped water is

to customers and retailers, while the rst foor will be

not guaranteed and the sewer capacity is not enough to

used to process raw materials. The second foor will be

extract rainwater rom the street during the monsoon

used or the processing o raw material into the nished

period. By centralising the residential area, inrastructure

product. This has been located on the second foor as

can be provided in a more systematic ashion. A central

we expect the processed material to be easier to move

pump room in each building will provide clean water

vertically than the raw material.

to each unit at sucient pressure to the highest foor.

Lastly, we are proposing separate accommodation on the top most foors o these work-based units (Figure

Sewers rom each unit will collect the wastewater and discharge it to the district sewer system o Dharavi.

6.22). This separation is crucial or the betterment o the

The second purpose o this typology is to ree up the

livelihoods o the migrant population o Dharavi working

space or private residential development. Right now,

in the manuacturing sector. This residential section

squatters are distributed throughout all o Dharavi, with

should take the shape o accommodations, and has been

most o them living in two storey houses. By stacking

inspired by college residences. They will be around 100

these houses in a vertical manner, the ootprint o the

square eet each. Common areas (kitchen, living area,

building can be reduced (Figure 6.24). With higher FSI,

and toilet) will be located on each foor.

the same ootprint area can allow more foor space and thus cater to more households. The saved space can be

Policy At a policy level, this proposal departs rom  rom the DRP at one additional level; it does not comply with the podium

utilised or high-rise private housing, discussed in the ollowing section, which will cross-subsidise the cost o the development.

typology (Figure 6.23). This distance in comparison to the DRP is essential in maintaining the character o the

Concept

historic centre o Dharavi. It also adds to the DRP as it

The units are designed to preserve and nurture

integrates rental stock to the plan in order to house the

economic and social networks. This typology is also

migrant workers. This is essential or the amelioration

designed to maximise the communal space on each

o poor living conditions, and to assure that new slums

foor, allowing women and children to gather easily

are not created outside the limits o the redevelopment

outside their units. The space can be a common corridor

area.

or atrium with a large opening to allow natural lighting and ventilation. People can retain the activities carried out in ront o their hutments, such as drying ood or clothes.


Each household is provided with a unit o 300 square eet, most o which is living area (Figure 6.25). From our analysis, a large number o households have been able to adapt the space and allow small-scale homebased production, such as jewellery making and fower selling, inside their homes. This type o house is thereore suitable or amilies not requiring large spaces specically or livelihood use.

Policy In terms o policy, this rehabilitation typology is in line with the DRP. The only variation is the abandonment o the above ground podium (Figure 6.26). The residential units are built directly on the ground foor instead o the raised podium level. Like the other typologies, the

Figure 6.24 current situation

layout will be designed by the architect and KRVIA with a eedback loop rom community representatives. Ater the scheme design o the foor plan, each household will be able to choose rom a number o layout options.

D. High-Rise (Private Sector)

Description Understanding the need or cross-subsidised

Figure 6.25 proposed arrangement

development, we believe that the presence o high-rise buildings in Dharavi is a symbiotic alternative that serves the private market as well as the citizens o Dharavi. Such a typology is quite disruptive to the organic way in which Dharavi has been developed, with heights o G+15 to G+30 and residential units ranging rom 500 700 square Feet. Thereore, Thereore, it is to be implemented only on the periphery o Dharavi. These peripheral zones have been identied based on their unique advantages, such as their proximity to railway stations and main roads. This will help to integrate part o Dharavi to the greater urban abric while protecting and providing continuity to the activities currently inherent in its centre.

Current Situation An idea has emerged to attract a new fow o high income groups currently living and working in dierent sectors o the city with the new oces and commercial activities to be supplied. Dharavi would help to release pressure in the busy southern area o Mumbai while including itsel in the wider urban abric through the


acilitation o a “growth centre” that the city demands (Figure 6.27). DHARAVI a case o contested urbanism 075

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

Figure 6.27 current situation (Bandra-Kurl (Bandra-Kurla a complex)

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 oer dierent alternatives that will help to reinforce the character of each place.

Figure 6.28 proposed arrangement

P P D R D R P P R m R m o D t f r r o o o o D o t o i t h n f r r n o w n e i t o o i m n e u s t m n a c d i t t r r a n il A d j u I n A d R e High Rise (Rehabilitatio (Rehabilitation) n) Work-base units Home-base economies

Figure 6.29 Place Pla ce policy matrix

076 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

6.2.6 Conclusion The conceptual catalogue we have created is refective o our concept and illustrative o our criticism o the current DRP. Although we recognise the need to accommodate the needs o Mumbai in Dharavi, we challenge the singular orm proposed by the DRP and propose densities that are more adapted to the needs o the community in place. As we argue or policies to be inormed by the reality o specic places, we propose a progressive approach to transormation that is directly linked with the context, and that prioritises the community beore other stakeholders.

REFERENCES Arnstein Sherry, 1969. A ladder o participation. Journal o the American Association. Vol 35, nº4. Desai Vandana, 1995. Community participation and slum housing: A case study o Bombay. Sage Publications, London. Keivani R. & Werna E., 2001. Models o 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., D., Slocum R., 1995. Participation Participation in context: key questions. In Power process and participation: tools or change. ITDG, London, pp.1730.


07 Chapter REFLECTIVE PRACTICE Critical Perceptions Balancing the Real and Academic Beyond Mumbai - Conceptualising Place and its Future

As the DRP takes a lead role in the transormation o Dharavi, are the correct priorities being set in place regarding the diversity o citizens citizens and livelihoods? Do the policy processes processes that regulate social transition and physical physical maniestation allow or exibility exibility and adaptation over time? Does the ‘world class city’ vision align with with historical trends, current realities, and uture predictions?

As illustrated in the analysis and scenarios, the situation in Mumbai, and specically Dharavi, is rie with conicting voices, visions and concerns o an indeterminate uture. Operating

within

this

contested

scene,

under the premise o ofering practical and alternative proposals or redevelopment, provided great challenges not only in regards to our daily production, but also our own perceptions o what it means to engage in such environments as a practitioner, two concepts that will be discussed herein, ollowed by a conceptualisation o present and uture Mumbai. Addressing these challenges amidst exposed realities and notions o a context existing in a constant state o ux yielded a continuous reassessment o methodologies and aproach. Our adaptability in response to reality checks and surprises thus emerged as an essential element throughout the process.

7.1 Critical Perception Perceptionss Recognising that our introduction and research into the case o Dharavi was initiated remotely in London, heavily based on literature reviews, lectures and media presentations, the idea o questioning critical perceptions carries a two-old nature. First, the stereotypical images and denitions used to represent ‘slums’ are, at best, criminally one-sided, making it very dicult to actually comprehend the essence o an area under question without setting oot on the ground. While the expected squalor, sub-standard inrastructure conditions and overcrowding exists, also revealed is a lively, adaptive, resilient community driven by ruitul assets o human and economic capital. Thus our conceptual understanding o ‘slum’ is/was called into evolving question. Equally undamental in terms o 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 or our understanding o the context. While the initial links and ideals o the t he individual actors remained relatively consistent, the revelations uncovered during our meetings in terms o divergent visions, motivations and concerns had a signicant efect on our daily reections and understandings. The inuence that an individual can have on the institution or organisation they represent, and thus on the subsequent unolding o a situation, an important variable to be acknowledged. For example, Gautam Chatterjee’s reign at the helm o MHADA has seen the appointment o an Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP, DRP, illustrating some degree o desire or inclusive representation in discussing


SPARC, our acilitator 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 maniested itsel. A slightly conictive element lies in the act that SPARC has a signicant presence within this context, requiring that their existence receive the same critical attention given to another. What became important importa nt or our work was the balancing o our own evolving perceptions as outsiders and temporary ‘partners’ alongside their experienced position - working through known compromises and levels o 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 rom our case study research o the in-situ redevelopment projects we acknowledge our own critical gauge o the level o their success. Did they appropriately address the needs and desires o individuals as transition took place? This opinion, much like our independent perceptions, contrasts with that o SPARC, coming to light during our conversations with Sheela Patel, whose stated seldesignated capacities attempted to ofer explanations in regard to decisions, outcomes, and uture plans. Simultaneously, we realised the contrasting measure o success as gauged by MHADA and MCGM. Coming to terms with these difering opinions in our own minds, we ormed a critical view towards a need to redene means o success in relation to an actor’s uture capacity.

7.2 Balancing the Real and Academic Our presence in Mumbai was one o evolving duality. There we ound ound ourselves thrust into what we we have reerred to as a conictive environment, which is shockingly real and heavily debated the world over, but also magnied on the ground within Dharavi. Like two sides o a coin we were both an academic institution bringing with it strong concepts o theoretical study, and in an instance, proessionals with expected capacity to envision change. The exposure to realities o sacricial negotiation compounded as we attempted to deliver a ‘real’, practical solution within a determined policy and typological ramework. ramework. As seen in Scenario 1, we conceded to the guidelines o the DRP, while asserting critical responsive alternatives in regards to the transormation o social well-being and livelihoods. Relating directly to our analysis, we questioned the scenario largely based on a planning driven initiative or the whole o Dharavi. Working with certain established policy provisions, this scenario departed dramatically rom the current DRP, especially in terms o physical typology and the ve sector parcel zoning. It also critically addressed policy guidelines and strategic processes o participation under the same vision as Scenario 1. The basis or working through this second

scenario stemmed directly rom the theoretical concepts and methodology related to prior projects undertaken throughout the BUDD course, working within a greater room or manoeuvre and the edge o academic reedom. The concept o duality as witnessed in the nature o our existence in Mumbai, and represented appropriately in our complementing scenarios, calls to mind the question o the practitioner’s role. Practitioners bring with them a knowledge capacity ormed, 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 o initial debrieng. Finding ourselves within a new, complex environment, ull o challenge and cultural exchange, sparked reality checks and questioning o value systems. It was imperative or us to stay grounded and observe the situation and the ‘checks ‘chec ks and balances’ therein - what is there, t here, what is not there. In order to achieve the goals we set or ourselves, ourselves, much attention was given to deciphering the eedback mechanisms in place and how we could position ourselves within them. Fortunately, in many cases, our presence was respectully regarded and rarely called into critical question. It was important or us to then use this allowance and platorm to understand our role in ofering a truly valuable contribution that enriches lives and on a larger scale and illustrates alternative solutions or the transormation o Dharavi.

7.3 Beyond Mumbai - Conceptualizing Place and its Future The previous arguments regarding proessional eld experience, the academic realm and how that relates to the role o practitioner, illustrate a needed balance in order to maintain a high standard o reection and implementation. For i one dismisses theoretical methodology in avour o mere respect or the uniqueness o place, a valuable opportunity may be be missed and standards may be afected. 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 o analysis and study since the early 1990s. The multitude o institutions, institutions, organisations and proessionals ofering services and producing alternative visions amplies daily. daily. In act, our visit marks the ourth ourth consecutive year the Development Planning Unit has conducted research in in the city. It can easily be said that Dharavi is in itsel becoming a concept resource model, representing contested urbanism and the general subject o slum upgrading and redevelopment. redevelopment. Just as Los Angeles and Las Vegas have become urban ideologies, through Mike Davis’s City o Quartz and Venturi’s Learning rom Las Vegas, so too has Mumbai (Dharavi) become an international breeding ground or

debate and research. This argument also maniests in the recent release o the lm Slumdog Millionaire, where a world audience now has a hyper image mechanism and conversation piece to attach with the concept o slum and the city o Mumbai. Despite Dharavi’s ertility in containing the complexities and contradictions that appeal to proessionals and academics alike, we must not orget that it is a living, breathing place without the antastic nature and allure o Los Angeles or the stylized adult playground o Las Vegas. The truth o Dharavi lies in its extreme situation o conict. Its appeal as a resource parallels the struggles o daily survival, the necessity or 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 ourishes with economic richness, communal and amily oriented networks and traditions, which breathe and sustain a diversity o lie 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 o place or have they picked upon the tragic complexities in order to justiy a grandiose urban vision? In response to this, again we assert that an appropriate balance needs to be achieved in order to inorm both experience and subsequent proposals that will lead to inclusive transormative outcomes or individuals and the city as a whole. The questions we ask here, in light o the declared desire or Mumbai to reach ‘world class city’ status, hark back to our stated conceptual ramework criteria and vision. As the DRP takes a lead role in the transormation transormation o Dharavi, are the correct priorities being set in place regarding the diversity o its citizens and livelihoods? Do the policy processes that regulate social transition and physical maniestation allow or exibility and adaptation over time? Does the ‘world class city’ vision align with historical trends, current realities, and uture 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 o daily social and economic activity. By addressing policy policy implications alongside basic necessities or sustaining and transorming community and livelihoods within a strategically planned urban landscape, we oretell the establishing o Dharavi as a pulsating heart o Mumbai, rather than an area branded with inormality and poverty, whose uture is determined in regards to land value and market trends alone. The character o Dharavi, as we have illustrated, is much more powerul than that. REFERENCES Davis Mike, 2006. City o quartz: excavating the uture in Los Angeles. Verso Books. Venturi et al. 1977. Learning rom Las Vegas: the orgotten symbolism o architectural orm. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.


RAJIV INDIRA

Appendix interview templates

Rajiv indira & Bharat janata Chambda bazaar Locating Home-based activities Locating Home-based Manufacturing activities Retail activities

BHARAT JANATA

Rajiv Indira & Bharat Janata Questionnaires How long have you lived in Dharavi? (Beore moving to new tenement) What is the size o the amily living together in this household? Tell T ell us about your typical t ypical 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 ater rehabilitation? And with the broader community o Dharavi? What do you like most about living here? What do you like the least? What do you do now? Who supports the household? h ousehold? Has the move aected this? How did you become aware o the Bharat Janata/Rajiv Indira rehabilitation process? Were you involved involved in the design process o the units? How? (Establish level o participation) par ticipation) 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 beore? How did you decide where you live, which oorlocation? (Understand power dynamics and diversityspace relationship) Do you make use o the communal spaces? Are they adequate or your communal needs? Where do the children children go to school? Where do they play ater school? How do you eel 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 aect this? (Unpack this spatially – where raw materials are rom) Have you heard about redevelopment plans or Dharavi? I yes, what do you think about the plan? I no, what do you think should change in Dharavi? Thank you or your time. Do you have some questions or us?

Interview

Interview profle 01

RAJIV INDIRA Ground floor, flat #3

Photos

HARIHARAN Approximate Approxima te age: 35-40 years old Household size: 5 (Hariharan, wie and three kids) Years in Dharavi: 20 Work activities: vegetable seller in Neta Nagar Nagar,,

Spatial experience /u se se Lived in 200 sq. t. one storey hut beore. Would have expanded home i in huts: need more space now as kids are older. Mezzanine largely used as storage, sometimes kids study there.

Design involvement No, 11 people (members o the society committee) made the decisions, they had 4 meetings to discuss the building. Hariharan knew they would get 10x12 eet space, didn’t eel right to ask or more, elt they were getting a lot.

Sketches Community relationship No change. More space beore or kids to play beore – 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 or problems; eels ortunate to have what he has.

Interview profle 02

RAJIV INDIRA First floor, flat #102

Photos

MRS. SAFI CUN NIZAM Approximate age: 50s Household size: 7 (husband, sons, daughter-in-law, daughter-in-law, child) Years Ye ars in Dharavi: 55 years, originally rom Alahabad Work activities: Son is a tailor in Kutiwari

Spatial experience /u se se Previous house was bigger, 10 people lived there. Had a large open space outside, ex-tended space o the house. Relatives oten stayed and worked in Dharavi, slept in this area. It was part o a la rger area, part o which was shared communal space.

Design involvement Design plans were prepared, society members did not have to provide their opinions. Builder 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.

Community relationship Not much change. Still well connected, when people have problems they all come together.

Like most / like least Less quarrels, more private space. Beore they had more open space, more room – here they are more restricted.

Sketches

Interview profle 03

RAJIV INDIRA

Fourth floor

Photos

MR. SUBIAH Approximate Approxima te age: 40s Household size: 5 (Wie, ( Wie, two sons, one daughter) Years in Dharavi: 40, beore came rom Tamil Nadu Work activities: home based potato vadha makers

Spatial experi ence /u se se Hal at was ull o potato and veg., space organised according to chain o production. Have more space now, able to have equipment. Aspiration o son is to have own shop.

Design involvement Family was one o 20 project aected peoples p eoples 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. Beore they had more open space, more room – here they are more restricted.

Interview profle 04

RAJIV INDIRA

Fourth floor, 421

Photos

MRS. VENI NAIDOO Approximate Approxima te age: 60 - 70 years old Household size: 6 (husband, son, daughters, grandchild) Years Ye ars in Dharavi: 20, originally rom Andhra Pradesh Work activities: Husband and son are tailors

Spatial experi ence /u se se More space than beore, but quite unhappy not to have the lot 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 aord rent.

Design involvement Husband spoke with the community leader, Veni does not know about this. They had little involvement involvement in the process, they were were only entitled to a at. at.

Community relationship The house is better but the community lie is totally dierent than beore. 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 have the mezzanine space

Interview profle 05 RAJIV INDIRA First floor, flat #109

Photos

MRS. PERMATA Approximate Approxima te age: mid 20s Household size: 4 (husband, daughter, daughter, in-law’s child) Years in Dharavi: 20+, originally rom Tamil Nadu Work activities: husband is a baggage handler at aeroport

Spatial experience /u se se Have more space and a better division o it here. Beore used to cook in ront o guests, now has kitchen. Drying clothes used to drip on top o them. Mezzanine space used mostly as storage area, or guests and or kids to sleep i sick.

Design involvement Mostly men doing this, husband told her about what was discussed: size o ats and 14 t ceilings. Given plan, shown drawings, didn’t nd any issues o concern. Meetings were held on Sundays so men ended up going to them.

Sketches Community relationship Has maintained contact with riends / neighbours. Normal gathering space they have is not enough when it is time or estivals and celebrations. Go to temples instead when they need a big space, but would preer to have space in Rajiv Indira.

Like most / like least Likes the high ceilings ceilings the most, much cleaner. Could be a bit bigger.

Interview profle 06

BHARAT JANATA

lat 202

Mrs Devi 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/o trucks in Dharavi, Dharavi, mother

packages school bags, one

brother works at a bank

Spatial experience /u se se Flat is bigger than what they used to have. They redid did the tiling when they got the at. The walls walls were were bare and needed a lot o work.

Design involvement Mother used to go to the meetings discussing the Bharat Janata housing. She had the option to either accept the at ree o cost, or alternately, accept a nancial compensation.

Community relationship Likes living in the huts more than the building; they had more reedom beore. beore. For example, kids could play anywhere and the space outside was part o their homes. As the brother lost lost contact with all his riends rom the huts, he also eels like it was better beore when they wre all together.

Like most / like least Mother and brothers preer living in the at. They have a sense o peace as the house is theirs. theirs. They can’t think o anything in particular that is bad abour BJ.

Photos

Interview profle 07

BHARAT JANATA

lat 206

Photos

Mr FRANCIS & Mrs BASTIME Approximate Approxim ate 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 /u se se Francis: he is happy with the new home. Lots o trouble in the hut. Bastime: she has less space than beore, she had two rooms beore.

Design involvement Francis is part o cooperative society commitee. He saw the plan, agreed to 225 t2. Did not talk to architect. “Community should tell builder what they want but the community needs to be strong (organised)” Francis

Community relationship Francis. They They kept good relations. Bastime has an appointment with the other women living in the building at 6 o’clock o’clock everyday on the ground oor to meet and chat. Children play in the ground oor .

Like most / like least Bastime Like most: utilities, particularly tap water. Like the least: the quality o construction materials (degradation o the wall in the bathroom and kitchen).

Interview profle 08

BHARAT JANATA

Photos lat 206

Mrs PANWASI Approximate Approxim ate age: early 40s Household size: 5 (mother, ather, 1 son, 2 daughters) Years in Dharavi: 28 years Work activities: Husband, building watchman in Mahim Mrs Panwasi + daughter daughter,, production small plastic bags and harinets.

Spatial experi ence /u se se Got more o less what they were promised. Have more space than beore. Beore they lived with uncle’s uncle’s amily, now they have their own own space. It is nice to live in the building.

Design involvement Husband/ather told them about the BJ buildings. Not really involved in the process. Took Took a long time, 12 years ago they started talking about it.

Community relationship Punuwasi and childrens meets riends downstairs, on ground oor. They have riends 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 ghts anymore People stay in their house, live by society rules. Don’t have water problems like beore. Son would like a space to play cricket. He does not like the poor quality o building.

Interview profle 09

BHARAT JANATA

Photos

lat 405

Mrs Razia Akbar Approximate Approxim ate age: early 40s Household size: 5 (husband, 2 daughters, 1 son) Years in Dharavi: 20 Work activities: husband works as taxi driver

Spatial experience /u se se Water does not come every day as promised. She uses the tank when there is no water rom tap. Flat is about our times smaller than what they used to have beore. Father and mother-in-law lived in the house.

Design involvement Beore society was ounded, didn’t have a role to play. Mostly Razia’s ather-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 eet so she was not expecting anything more.

Community relationship Relationships haven’t changed much.

Friends come

to their home as there is no specic public/open space that they can use. Kids play in corridor with the neighbouring kids.

Like most / like least She eels 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 profle 10 Like most / like least Relations in the community was better beore, but here

BHARAT JANATA

the house is better. Much better staying here, used to have ooding with the rain, now much more comortable. Environment is quiet, not too much noise. lat 402

Photos

Mrs SHANAM Approximate Approxim ate 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 ofce, since ather died, 10 months ago, she has stopped working Father used to work in railways.

Spatial experi ence /u se se The space is about the same as the one they had beore but is divided dierently; their previous house had 2 rooms.

Upgrated their at: tiled oors, walls and

kitchen, all done very nicely, or the cost o 1.5 lakhs. When they got the house, cement/mud was alling o. .

Design involvement Husband was a member o the society committee, Shanam got inormed 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, dierent spaces or religious activities, other spaces or specic unctions – none o this was maniested in the nal product.

Community relationship Daughter: Liked living in transit camp as there was a sense o 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. Beore, living in the huts, they had more open and communal spaces. Every evening around 6pm Shanam goes downstairs, to ground oor o BJ, where she gathers with the other women to socialize.

Sketches

Interview profle 11

BHARAT JANATA lat 302

SAMSUDDIN Approximate Approximat e age: MID 40s Household size: 56 people liv and work in at Years in Dharavi: 28 years Work activities: home based activity (textile design; handiwork embroidery

Spatial experience /u se se Interviewee used to have twice the space; same oor area but in a two storey storey building. To maximize usage o space, no urniture 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 oor.

Design involvement Not involved in design.

Community relationship Relationship change: people who used to live immediately around Samsuddin in the huts have been relocated throughout the city. Social relations have been aected; his neighbours are not people he knew beore. I has time to socialize, he goes to his riend’s houses whom are involved with the same type o work as he is.

Like most / like least He is satised with his current arrangement as the current work space is o better quality than the old one (well ventilated and provides basic amenities. )

Photos

Interview profle 12

BHARAT JANATA 6th loor

Photos

Mrs Devar Kripa Approximate Approxim ate age: early 40s Household size: 4 (hsband, son and son’s wie) Years in Dharavi: 34 years Work activities: Vegetable seller, Husband is watchman

Spatial experi ence /u se se 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 at. Had a very small house beore, beore, much smaller than the one they have now.

Design involvement Not involved in the design. When they were living in the hut, they elt like moving to a building was going to be a great improvement.

Community relationship Prior to the move, they had been together or 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 eel that there is not enough open space. space. The walls o building are o poor quality. quality. The space they got is too small or their extended amily.

Chambda Bazaar

Home-based Activities Questionnaires What would you change about your house to help h elp your business? Do your neighbours help you with your business? Do the other members o your amily 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 or your children? Will they take over your business when they grow up? Is the economic activity limited by restricted service provision? Would more water water or electrical provision expand the business or change the type o business? For how many generations has your amily been involved in this type o business? What are your thoughts and expectations o the DRP?

Interview

Interview profle 13

Photos

Drum maker [amily] 14 people in the house (it is a joint amily) He has 5 brothers 2 women, 4 men present during our interview They’ve been there or 60-70 years / 3 generation generationss

Space His house was a double-height space (one room) He needs more space, and wants a separate workshop space. He would add another oor but he has no permission to do that existing propositions or the site

Livelihoods The drum-making requires great skill All members o the amily help with the business It takes 3-4 days to make a drum He gets Rs. 3,000 or one drum He sells the drums all across the coast o India but he doesn’t have a license to so this himsel 400-500 pieces per month is the maximum production (depending on the order)

About DRP I he moves, he thinks his business will stop and he will lose his network o customers He has a sense o place and belonging here, he was quite emotional about the DRP and moving

Sketches

Interview profle 14

Photos

Food stand

[owner]

7 person live in house All relatives live around Rented rom a amily member Will be moving soon because they cannot aord the rent

Space Room was used as restaurant seating area and cooking place and storage and in the night everyone slept there.

Livelihoods He sells ood to the residents live in the community. He also sets up his stall outside the room and sells the ood. The other renters work in Dharavi and also outside.

About DRP He told us DRP will not aect him h im because he is renting. Seemed indirent.

Interview profle 15

Photos

Sewing workshop [amily] 7 person live in house All relatives live around Rented rom a amily member Will be moving soon because they cannot aord the rent

Space Preer to meet riends inside house Outside is used or dishwashing and laundry Could make great use o a second small room, or work

Livelihoods Small beads on bottom o pajama pants Receive pants already 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

About DRP Preer house to high rise. Seems to be because they are so strongly anchored in their community.

Sketches

Interview profle 16

Photos

Day care centre

[owner]

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.

Space She seemed to have quite a large house with rerigerator,, reezer, computer and other amenities. rerigerator Outside space is not used.

Livelihoods She teaches in Hindi & English. She has 25-30 kids that she watches. Her husband is a taxi driver.

About DRP She thinks a high-rise is better. She would keep her daycare since she had ha d it or 20 years.

Chambda Bazaar

Manuacturing Questionnaires How many people work here? Do they live in Dharavi? I yes, where. What is their average income? What is their daily schedule? How many working hours? How many shits per day? Is there any ederation amongst the workers? Is the location important or the business? Is the owner renting the place or not? n ot? Can the business be relocated in another place? What are the dierent phases o production? What is the daily, monthly and weekly production? Do the raw materials come rom 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 o their businesses? Do they want to change something in terms o 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

Interview profle 17

Bakery [manager] Networks

Photos

Dierent traders within Dharavi. He contacts several manuactures to bring the material rom dierent states. One state is at the centre o Dharavi. The oil comes rom Gujarat (West).

Space & Livelihoods Process o production: Store our on the ground (do not use substantive material). Mix our with butter in the machine and then bake the paste on the oven or 4 hours. The bakery is open 24 hours a day. 12 people work there in two shits. The manager takes a break or 6 hours and sleeps in the bakery. They come rom 2 dierent states apart rom Maharastra. They normally work or 4 - 5 months and go back to their amilies or 2 months and come again back. back . They don’t have bank holidays.

About DRP He doesn’t want to leave rom Chambra Bazaar

Sketches

Interview profle 18

Photos

Treasurer Tr easurer o Pottery Society

Networks Retail shops in Dharavi as part o 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 o house interior VLT – Vacant Land Tenancy

About DRP Sel-designated cluster unit plan, 1998 Reject the DRP Have held talks, shown proposals or own (sel) redevelopment in terms o livelihoods etc.

Interview profle 19

Photos

Store bag-luggage manuacture [workers]

Networks No network - individual Material: rom Dharavi Products go to central Mumbai and then to suburb area

Space & Livelihoods Family business, second generation, since 1965 Process: all the phases o production at the place 4 people, migrated Residence: the 4 workers work 11 hours and sleep at the working area.

About DRP The owner has his own tenure so he can get one store and his aspiration is on ground oor shop and upper oor residence.

Sketches

Interview profle 20 Photos

Leather industry [owner]

Networks Total T otal 5 – 6 leather industries in Dharavi. Deliver to dierent places (Kolkata, Chennai). Products: Nothing stays in Dharavi (industrial saety belts, military shoes). They export mostly in Europe. The bualo comes rom Western Maharastra (Deonar) No ederation. No network. The tanning in Chennai. Tracks are coming rom Chennai. In Dharavi the materials are ready. It’s a ashion industry business which exports nationally and internationally (British, Germany, Emirates).

Space & Livelihoods He exports leather products, as there is no uture to skin. Accessibility: Delivery by tracks. They load directly outside the store. Storage on the ground oor.

About DRP “I will be very happy or the redevelopment plan. I I have a good place or 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 i I cannot stay I’m willing to negotiate or a good place. We are preparing or this. We have to train the people. To To make them have skills”.

Sketches

Chambda Bazaar

Retail activities Questionnaires How long have you worked in Dharavi? Where are your rom? Why did you leave that place and chose to move to Dharavi? What do you do or 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 o your amily members work with you? Can you walk us through your typical day/ night and explain i/ 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 (i there is one)/who are your customers? What are you uture plans or your children? Will Will they take over your business? Are you a member o any organization?I so why did you join it?How oten do you meet? What do you know about the DRP? How do you eel about it? Do you know anyone shited to in the buildings rom Dharavi? Can you continue your work in a high rise building? Why would you like to change in your lie or o your children i given a chance in uture? Would you like to ask us anything?

Interview

Interview profle 21

Photos

Jewellery [President o Dharavi Gold Association]

Networks Depends on local network to buy and sell gold President o Dharavi Gold Association

Labour 3 – 6 male workers.

Owners Owner o the shop since 1990 All Shopkeepers Associations did not protect them rom the dispute thus starting the Dharavi Gold Association Problem with the authenticity o the gold leading to police disputes. Meets 2-3 times every year. 7 member committee reporting to him. Part o the Save Dharavi Movement.

Sketches

Interview profle 22

Photos

Embroidery Shop [Owner]

Networks Supplies to Dadar Market in Mumbai by train or taxi twice a month

Labour Peak

season

25

workers;

o

peak

6

works.

Sleeps in the same workshop Takes 5 hours to make one piece

Sketches Owners Came to Dharavi 10 months ago In a rented workshop o the rst oor o the building Do not belong to any union Wie and kids lived in Dharavi or 2 months. Could not adapt so they moved back.

Interview profle 23

Photos

Bakery [Owner]

Networks Biscuits exported outside o Dharavi Sold locally. Biscuits transported by bikes then trucks would then take them all over India. Raw materials delivered once a month rom various parts o India (our rom Goregeon).

Labour Migrant workers lives in the dormitory space within the bakery cluster. Works there or 8-10 months, goes back to the village or 2 months, then comes back works in 2 shits (day and night shit). More people in the day shit than the night shit. Factory runs or 24 hours.

Owners Initially more than 1 bakery but has to sell them o Sold them o or the leather and garment business Son joined his business.

Sketches

Interview profle 24

Photos

Seamstress [Owner]

Networks Clients in Dharavi. Does not need more enough clients as is. Part o a SRA group who meets 3-4 times.

Labour Works on her own. A home base economic activity.

Sketches Owners Only does women’ women’ss clothing Does beading/ stitching as well. Beading needs special device. Stitched beore marriage. Lived in a village beore coming to Pune. Husband is a cobbler. Not aware o the DRP. Would like the main road to be developed. Not worried because she will get ground commercial space since she got license

Bibliography Asian Development Bank (2008), Managing Asian Cities: Sustainable and inclusive urban solutions. Asian Development Bank. [http://www.adb.org/Documents/Studies/Managing[http://www.adb.org/Documents/Studies/Managing-Asian-Cities/ Asian-Cities/ default.asp] Adarkar N. (2003), Gendering G endering of the Culture of Building: Case of Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. Vol. 38, No. 43 (Oct. 25-31, 2003), pp. 4527-4529+4531- 4534. Anjaria J. (2006), Urban Calamities: A View From Mumbai, Space and Culture, Vol. Vol. 9, No. 1 Bapat M., Agarwal I. (2003), Our needs, our priorities; women and men from the slums in Mumbai and Pune talk about their needs for water and sanitation, Environment & Urbanization , Vol. 15, No. 2 Banerjee-Guha S. (2002), Shifting Cities: Urban Restructuring in Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. Vol. 37, No. 2 (Jan. 12-18, 2002), pp. 121-128. BBC news channel, 2006. Life in a slum. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/w [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/06/ orld/06/ dharavi_slum/html/dharavi_slum_intro.stm] Burra S., (1999), Resettlement and rehabilitation of the urban poor: the story of Kanjur Marg. DPU working papers. [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/publicatio [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/publications/working%20papers%20pdf/WP ns/working%20papers%20pdf/WP %2099%20final.pdf] Burra S. (2000), A Journey towards citizenship: the Byculla area resource centre, centre, Mumbai. SPARC. SPARC. [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpuprojects/drivers_u [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpuprojects/drivers_urb_change/urb_governance/pdf_co rb_change/urb_governance/pdf_comm_act/ mm_act/ SPARC_Burra-Byculla_ARC_Mumbai.pdf] Burra S. (2005) Towards Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading in Mumbai, India Environment and Urbanization, Vol.17, No. 1. Chambers R., Conway G., 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. Chakravorty S. (1996), Too Too Little, in the Wrong Places? Mega City Programme and E fficiency and Equity in Indian In dian Urbanisation. Economic and Political Political Weekly, Vol. Vol. 31, No. 35/37, Special Number (Sep., 1996), pp. 2565-2567+2569-2572. Chaplin E. S., (1999), Cities, sewers and poverty: povert y: India’s politics ofsanitation, ofsanitation, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. Vol. 11, No. 1. Chatterji R. (2005) Plans, habitation and slum redevelopment: The production of community in Dharavi, Mumbai, Contributions to Indian sociology, sociology, Vol.39, No. 2 CitywathcINDIA (2008), A SPARC SPARC - NSDF - Mahila Mah ila Milan Publication, Issue 4 D' Souza J. B. (1997), Mumbai Textile Textile Mills' Land: High Cost of Inaction. I naction. Economic and Political Political Weekly, Vol. Vol. 32, No. 1/2 (Jan. 4-11, 1997), pp. 24-25. D'Monte D. (1998), Redevelopment of Mumbai's Cotton Textile Textile Mill Land: Opportunity Lost. Economic and Political Weekly, Weekly, Vol. 33, No. 6 (Feb. 7-13, 1998), pp. 283-285+287-290.

Dannenberg J., Murphy N., Riano Q., Speigel D., Wampler R., Watson Watson J. (2007), The Social Design Practice, [http://socialdesign.wordpress.com/] [http://socialdesign.wordpress.com/] Desai V. V. (1999), Anatomy of the Bombay NGO sector, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. Vol. 11, No. 1 Dikeç M. (2001), Justice and the spatial imagination. Environment and Planning A. [http:// www.envplan.com] Fernandes L. (2004), The Politics of Forgetting: Class Politics, State Power Power and the Restructuring of Urban Space in India. Urban Stud 2004; 41; 2415. [http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/ [http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/ abstract/ 41/12/2415] Friedmann J., Douglass M., (1998), Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age. Wiley, New York. Goetz, A, Gaventa, J (2001), Bringing B ringing citizen voice and client focus into service delivery, IDS Working Paper 138, IDS, Brighton. Harris N. (1995), Bombay in a global economy Structural adjustment and the role of cities, Cities, Vol. 12, No. 3 Harris A. (2008), From London to Mumbai and Back Again: Gentrification and Public Policy in comparative perspective. Urban Stud 2008; 45; 2407. [http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/ [http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/ abstract/45/12/2407] Kumar S., (2002), Round pegs and square holes: mismatch between poverty and housing policy in urban India. In World poverty by Peter Townsend, Townsend, David Gordon. The Policy Press, University of Bristol, Bristol. Kumar, S. (2005). Room for Manoeuvre: tenure and the urban poor in India In dia in Hamdi, Nabeel (ed) with Hane Handal Urban Futures : Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction. London: ITDG. Learning from Mumbai Urban Age Seminar, 29 May – 15 June 2007, Cities Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science. Mahadevia D., Narayanan H. (1999), Shanghaing Shan ghaing Mumbai – Politics of Evictions and Resistance in Slum Settlements. Centre For Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad. Miraftab F. F. (2008), Insurgent Planning: Situating Radical Planning in the Global South, Planning Theory, Vol. Vol. 8, No. 1 Mitlin D. (2003), A fund to secure land for shelter: supporting strategies of the organized poor, poor, Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 15, No. 1. Mitlin D. (2008), Finance for low-income housing and community development. Global Urban Development Magazine. [http://www.globalurban.org/GUDMag08V [http://www.globalurban.org/GUDMag08Vol4Iss2/Mitlin.htm]. ol4Iss2/Mitlin.htm]. McKinsey & Company (2003), Vision Mumbai: Transforming Mumbai into a world-class city. September, September, A Bombay First - McKinsey Report. Nallathiga R. (2003), The Impacts of Density Regulation: A Case Study of Mumbai, Paper presented in the 47th World Cities Congress with the thematic focus on ‘Cities and Markets : Shifts in Urban Development’ Development’ held at Vienna (Austria) on October 5-8, 2003.

Nijman J. (2000), Mumbai's Real Estate Market in 1990s: De-Regulation, Global Money and Casino Capitalism. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. Vol. 35, No. 7 (Feb. 12-18, 2000), pp. 575-582. Patel S. B. (1996), Slum Rehabilitation in Mumbai: Possible If Done Di ff erently. erently. Economic and Political Weekly, Weekly, Vol. Vol. 31, No. 18 (May 4, 1996), pp. 1047-1050. Patel S. B. (1997), Urban Planning by Objectives. Economic and Political Weekly, Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 16 (Apr. 19-25, 1997), pp. 822-826. Patel S. (n.d.), Constructing Houses: Understanding how the alliance of SPARC, Mahila Milan and NSDF manage construction. SPARC India. [http://www.sparcindia.org/docs/construction.txt] [http://www.sparcindia.org/docs/construction.txt] Patel S., Arputham J., Burra S., Savchuk K. (2009), Getting the information base for Dharavi's redevelopment, Environment and Urbanization ,Vol. 2, No. 1 Patel S. and Arputham J (2007), An off er er of partnership or a promise of con flict in Dharavi, Mumbai?, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 19, No. 2 Patel S. and Arputham J. (2008), Plans for Dharavi: negotiating a reconciliation between a state driven market redevelopment and residents’ aspirations, Environment and urbanization, Vol. 20, No. 1 Patel S and Bartlett S (2009), Reflections on innovation, assessment, and social change: a SPARC case study, Development in Practice, Vol. Vol. 19, No. 1 Patel S. and D'Cruz C. (1993), The Mahila Milan crisis credit scheme: scheme: from a seed to a tree, tree, Environment and Urbanization, Vol.5, No.1 Patel S., D’Cruz C., Burra S. (2002), Beyond evictions in a global city: people managed resettlement in Mumbai, Environment & Urbanization, Vol. Vol. 14, No. 1 Roy A. (2009) Strangely Familiar: Planning and the Worlds of Insurgence and I nformality, Planning Theory, Vol. Vol. 8, No. 1 Roy A. (2009), Why India Cannot Plan Its I ts Cities: Informality, Insurgence and the Idiom of Urbanization, Planning Theory, Vol. 8, No. 1 Roy A. (2006), Book Review: Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found, Urban Aff airs airs Review, Vol.41 Roy A. (2009), Civic Governmentality: The Politics Politics of Inclusion in Beirut and Mumbai, Antipode, Vol. Vol. 41, No. 1 Rybczynski, W. et at (1984). “How the Other Half Builds. Volume 1: Space”, Research Paper No. 9, Centre for Minimum Cost Housing, School of Architecture, McGill University, Montréal. Satterthwaite D. (2001), From From professionally driven to people-driven poverty reduction: reflections on the role role of Shack/Slum Shack/Slum Dwellers International, Environment Environment & Urbanization, Urbanization, Vol. 13, No. 2 Sharma R. N., Sita K. K . (2000), Cities, Slums a and nd Government. Economic and Political Weekly, Weekly, Vol. Vol. 35, No. 42 (Oct. 14-20, 2000), pp. 3733-3735. Sharma K. (2000), Rediscovering Dharavi. Penguin books India, Delhi.

Sliuzas R., Mboup G., Sherbinin A., (2008). Expert Group Meeting on Slum Identi fication and Mapping. UN-HABITAT, CIESIN, ITC. Solomon B. (2004), Urban Ur ban land transformation for pro-poor economies, Geoforum, Vol. 35, No.32 SPARC SPARC (1990), SPARC: developing new NGO lines. Environment and Urbanization 1990; 2; 91. [http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/ [http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/2/1/91?ck=nck] 2/1/91?ck=nck] Srinivas L. (1991), Land and Politics Politics in India: Working of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. Economic and Political Weekly, Weekly, Vol. 26, No. 43 (Oct. 26, 1991), pp. 2482-2484. Swaminathan M. (1995), Aspects of urban poverty in Bombay, Environment and Urbanization, Vol., No. 1 Tiwari P. P. and Parikh J. (2000), Housing paradoxes in India: is there a solution? Building and Environment, Vol. 35 Yiftachel O. (2009), Theoretical Theoretical Notes On `Gray Cities': the Coming of Urban Apar theid?, Planning Theory, Vol. 8, No. 1

Dharavi: a case of contested urbanism

Recommend Documents