Dharavi Contested Urbanism_BUDD09_low Res

Participants

May 2009

Master of Science in Building and Urban Design in Development (2008 – 2009)

Development Planning Unit

University College London

Members of 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 of America

Su-Eun Jung South Korea

Benjamin Leclair-Paquet Canada

Xiaolu Li China

Phirany Lim United States of America

Gynna Millan Franco Colombia

Kelvin Naidoo South Africa

Hye-Joo Park Korea

Nota Syrrothanasi Greece

Pooja Varma India

Andrew Wade United States of America

ParticipantsTable of ContentsImage indexAcronymsAcknowledgementsExecutive summary

01 Chapter Introduction 006 1.1 Locating Mumbai: A World Class City? 1.2 Dharavi: The Heart of Contested Urbanism1.3 Terms of Reference1.4 Theoretical Framework1.5 Vision

02 Chapter Methodology 013 2.1 The Process2.2 Asumptions and Limitations

03 ChapterTowards the Dharavi Redevelopment Project? 018

3.1 Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums3.2 Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project3.3 Policy Comparisons and Critique3.4 Physical Proposals and Critiques3.5 Contested Visions of the DRP3.6 Conclusions

04 ChapterCurrent Reality in Dharavi: Analysis and Emerging Issues 028

4.1 Context, Scope and Framework for Analysis4.2 Experienced Impact on Livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira4.3 Urban Analysis of Chambra Baazar4.4 Anticipated Impact of In-Situ Redevelopment in Chambra Baazar4.5 Summary of Analysis and Finding: Moving into the Scenarios

05 ChapterBridging the Gap : Rationale for the Scenarios 048

06 ChapterThe Scenarios 078

6.1 Scenario 1: Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Plan6.2 Scenario 2: BUDD Proposal: Towards an Alternative Vision

IMAGE INDEX

01 Chapter 1.1 map of Greater Mumbai

1.2 map of Dharavi

1.3 photo of DRP proposal sketch from Mumbai Mirror

1.4 images of negotiating the change from hutment dweller to tenement dweller

1.5 diagram of actor pressures (adapted from Pieterse 2003)

03 Chapter 3.1 figure of evolution of government approach to slums

3.2 photo of present Mumbai by Chirodeep Chaudhuri

3.3 photo of present Mumbai by Chirodeep Chaudhuri

3.4 images of DRP transformation in Dharavi

3.5 map of the 5 sectors by Mehta

3.6 image of DRP proposed podium typology from Mumbai Mirror

3.7 diagram of transformation process of Indian cities towards a world class city

04 Chapter4.1 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 of interaction space in the previous and the current situation and corre-

sponding analytical diagram

4.8 Images showing the quality of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) and corresponding an-

alytical diagram

4.9 Images showing the use of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) with current plan l o c a t i o n

and corresponding analytical diagram

4.10 Images showing the use of communal space around the building (Rajiv Indira) with current plan l o c a t i o n

and corresponding analytical diagram

4.11 Interview photos (with the community leader of Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram

surrounding the question of participation in design

4.12a map showing Dharavi development in 1933

4.12b map showing Dharavi development in 1969

4.12c map showing Dharavi development in 2008

4.13 major road linkages throughout Dharavi

4.14 land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar

4.15a photos showing use of 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 of 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 of home-based activities (and their location) within Chambda Bazaar (map)

4.20a interview photos- different scale home-based commercial activities

4.20b analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (home-based work)

4.21a photos showing diversity of open space- commercial/residential

4.21b analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (diverse spatial use)

05 Chapter 5.1 diagram of setting the scenario

06 Chapter 6.1 Diagram showing the varying degrees of participation

6.2 Image illustrating the exclusionary nature of the DRP

6.3 Image illustrating means of design communication

6.4 Diagram showing mulit-actor participation

6.5 Image showing the proposed monolithic typology of the DRP

6.6 Photographs of livelihood profile in Rajiv Indira, Unit 005



6.9 Diagram showing possibility for expansion under the DRP

6.10 Diagram of options to purchase additional space

6.11 Diagram of enabling spatial proposals

6.12 Conceptual proposals map

6.13 Table of Development Strategy Schema

6.14 Diagram illustrating process of community involvement

6.15 Poster of layout options

6.16 Urban density map

6.17 Photograph of current situation (home-based units)

6.18 Diagram of proposed space-use arrangement

6.19 Place-Policy Matrix (home-based units)

6.20 Illustration of migrants’ use of space

6.21 Illustration of production networks

6.22 Diagram showing the separation of spatial uses

6.23 Place-Policy Matrix (work-based units)

6.24 Diagram of current situation

6.25 Diagram of proposed arrangement (rehabilitation high-rise)

6.26 Place-Policy Matrix (rehabilitation high-rise)

6.27 Photographs of current situation (Bandra-Kurla Complex)

6.28 Diagram of proposed arrangement (private sector high-rise)

6.29 Place-Policy Matrix (private sector high-rise)

ACRONYMS

Community-Led Infrastructure Financing Facility

Dharavi Redevelopment Project

Expoert Advisory Committee

Floor Space Index

Government of Maharashtra

Housing Development & Infrastructure Limited

Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

National Slum Dwellers Federation

Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres

Transferable Development Rights

CLIFFDRPEACFSIGoMHDILKRVIAMCGMMHADAMMCMMRDANSDFSRASPARCTDR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank many people that have

contributed and given invaluable support to this work.

First and foremost, we would like to thank the Society

for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC) and

the Kamala Raheja Vidhyanidhi Institute of Architecture

(KRVIA) for their constant guidance and hospitality dur-

ing our stay in Mumbai. The following people have been

particularly supportive of this work: Mrs. Sheela Patel,

Director of SPARC; Mr. Sundar Burra, Advisor to SPARC;

Aseena Viccajee, Systems Manager of SPARC and SSNS;

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

nezes of KRVIA.

Furthermore, we would like to thank several people

who contributed to this work through their presenta-

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

President of National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF);

Mr. Gautam Chatterjee, Vice President and Chief Execu-

tive Officer of MHADA, and Officer on Special Duty for

the Dharavi Redevelopment Project; Mr. Milind Mhaiskar,

Project Director (MUTP) and Metropolitan Commission-

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

Mumbai Transformation Support Unit; Mr. S.K. Joshi Ad-

visor to SPARC; Ms. Kalpana Sharma, author and jour-

nalist; Ms. Neera Adarkar, architect and activist and P.K.

Das, architect and activist.

Many thanks go to the women of Mahila Milan, es-

pecially Prema, our facilitators from SPARC, namely Lo-

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

specifically Neelima, Rutwick, Amruyta and Siddhartha,

as well as Rochit, who all went to great lengths to facili-

tate our fieldwork. Your help in navigating Dharavi was

invaluable.

Additionally we would like to thank all our tutors

at the Development Planning Unit, University College

London, for their guidance throughout this academic

year, with special reference to Dr. Camillo Boano, Direc-

tor of the MSc in Building and Urban Design in Develop-

ment course, for his constant encouragement, support

and guidance. We would also like to thank the BUDD

Course Coordinator Isis P Nunez Ferrera for her fruitful

discussions, suggestions and constructive critiques.

Finally, we would like to express our deep grati-

tude to the people of Dharavi, who were always eager

to open their houses and shops, sharing with us their

aspirations and demonstrating the strength of their

community.

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PresentationThis report was produced by the students of the MSc

Building and Urban Design in Development (BUDD)

course at the Development Planning Unit (DPU) of The

Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment at University

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

six-week programme that included three weeks of

fieldwork and interviews with major stakeholders and

actors, alongside lectures and a comprehensive literature

review. The purpose of the study was to understand

the complex and often conflicting interrelationship

between livelihoods, policy and space in Dharavi,

Mumbai. The specific sites of study were two buildings

of rehabilitated ‘slum dwellers’ – Bharat Janata and Rajiv

Indira – and Chambda Baazar, an area characterised

by minimal high-rise development and significant

commercial and home-based economic activity.

After an introduction to the contexts of Mumbai

and Dharavi, the report outlines the policy context and

the current masterplan being pursued by the Dharavi

Redevelopment Project (DRP). Based on fieldwork and

analysis, findings are then presented in regards to the

experienced impact on livelihoods on rehabilitated

‘slum dwellers’ in moving from hutments to buildings

in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira, and the anticipated

impact of such urban transformation in Chambda

Bazaar. Two Scenarios are then presented, the first of

which proposes adjustments within the parameters

of the current DRP, and the second which proposes an

alternative redevelopment strategy.

Key FindingsThe Dharavi Redevelopment Project

In order to satisfy Mumbai’s intent to become a

‘World Class City’, the municipal government has

established objectives that are to be met through a

series of major urban infrastructure and redevelopment

projects, hand in hand with a drive towards the vision

of a ‘slum free’ city. Through a state facilitated Public-

Private Partnership (PPP), the architect Mukesh Mehta

and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development

Authority (MHADA) have developed the DRP, which is

in essence a tabula-rasa redevelopment strategy for

the entire territory of Dharavi.

Its key characteristics are:

• Dividing Dharavi into five sectors, to be

redeveloped by five developers;

• Increasing density by setting a Floor

Space Index (FSI) of four as a regulatory tool,

as compared to two and a half in the rest of

Mumbai;

• Adoptinganewsingulartypologysolution

consisting of a three-storey podium with high-

rise building above.

• Financingthroughcrosssubsidisationand

commodification of Transferable Development

Rights (TDR) in a Public-Private Partnership.

• Allocating300square footflatsatnocost

for all residents currently living in Dharavi and

listed in the census of 1 January, 2000.

002


Analysis of experienced and anticipated impact on livelihoods

Findings that emerged from the analysis of field

observations and numerous semi-structured interviews

clearly illustrate that the people of Dharavi should not

be perceived as a homogenous group, but rather an

extremely diverse conglomeration of sub-groups.

A few highlighted key findings, as filtered through

the analytical concepts of policy, livelihoods and

space and the four criteria forming the theoretical

framework - namely diversity, adaptability, flexibility

and multiplicity, show:

Experienced impacts in Bharat Janata and Rajiv

Indira

• The current SlumRehabilitationAct (SRA)

creates a trade off for owners of both commercial

units and residential space located in the same

structure to choose between one or the other,

thus failing to recognise the multiplicity of

use in existing building structures. Policy is

thus inflexible to people’s requirements and

individuals’ adaptability through time.

• While the majority of people in Dharavi

have an exceptional ability to adapt to both new

social and physical conditions, the SRA policy

does not recognise the multiplicity of activities

and use of space for home-based activities

inside flats, nor does it recognise the flexibility

of space as an issue requiring attention.

• Socialcohesionwasfoundtobenegatively

affected in high-rise rehabilitation projects,

especially among women and children. The

importance of the exterior/public environment

in terms of providing space for socialising is not

recognised in policy, in terms of multiplicity of

functions nor necessary quality of space.

• SRA policy does not consider people’s

involvement in the building design process,

fundamental to identify people’s multiplicity of

use of space and diversity of requirements.

Anticipated impacts in Chambda Bazaar

• Commercialactivitieshavethrivedbecause

of their flexibility, diversity, adaptability and

multiplicity in the present informal situation,

often connected to larger chains of production in

India and internationally. Such characteristics are

not given due recognition in policy.

• Many commercial activities are dependent

upon migrant workers who work for free or

nominal compensation within commercial

clusters; such flexible conditions of work-live

spaces and the adaptations that owners have

made through time to address labourers’ needs

are not addressed in SRA policy.

• Small-scalehome-basedactivitiesoftenform

part of a wider chain of production that connects

people to the rest of Dharavi and its economic

networks. SRA policy fails to understand the

diversity and flexibility of space and networks

that home-based commercial activities require.

• Residential and commercial tenements are

often very small and have a multiplicity of co-

003

existing uses, where many activities are extended

into open spaces outside the main structures.

Such multiplicity and adaptation through time is

not recognised at the policy level.

Urban AnalysisOur fieldwork enabled a better understanding of the

urban forms present in Dharavi, and of their association

with different uses and social interactions.

Some key findings illustrate that:

• Correlation between societal organisations

and living clusters was strongest in hutments

formed around multi-functional open spaces,

and hutments with direct access open spaces.

• Nagars(neighbourhoods)organisedaround

open spaces use this exterior domain to socialise

with neighbours and to operate small-scale

businesses.

• Exterior spaces in organic clusters with

minimal open spaces were generally used only to

carry out household chores.

• Units were often built incrementally,

by adding storeys to the ground level to

accommodate changing needs.

• Incremental building accounts for the

diversity of the urban environment, and the

synthesis of different storey buildings in close

proximity.

• Manufacturing clusters requiring greater

accessibility were strategically located along

primary and secondary local roads.

RecommendationsThe findings of our study indicate a clear disconnect

between the proposed plan for the redevelopment of

Dharavi and the current situation of the stakeholders

most affected by the process: the citizens of Dharavi.

Our recommendations come in the form of two

scenarios, each containing various proposals that

reconcile our findings to different visions for Dharavi.

The first scenario explores new ways to include key

findings into the DRP, while the second proposes an

alternative vision which abandons certain components

of the DRP, with clear justifications for each departure,

in order to be more sensitive to the current reality of

the area and its citizens.

These scenarios in particular were created in

recognition of the diversity of stakeholders involved in

the DRP process, including the recently created Expert

Advisory Panel to the DRP as the prime civil society

representative body, in order to offer new options

and perspectives as well as to support continuous and

incremental negotiations.

The First Scenario highlights the need for greater

transparency, citizen involvement, and the recognition

of the heterogeneous nature of the residents of Dharavi.

The aims of the proposals in this Scenario are to:

• Suggest grassroots involvement by

directly engaging with the existing civil society

organisations in Dharavi;

• Propose the saleof additional floor space

to recipients of the provided flats.

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism004


This plural approach to housing provision looks

to be more adaptive and enabling to people through

the process of transformation, by acknowledging the

existing diversity in capacity and needs within the

community. It recognises the potential of existing

households to participate more equitably in the

process.

The Second Scenario underlines the multiplicity

and diversity of the citizens of Dharavi, and thus the

need for a wider scale and complex urban proposal.

Regarding the redevelopment strategy, the programme

presented in this scenario conceptualises the need and

means to:

• Integratemigrants;

• Acknowledge the role of the different

morphological forms in Dharavi;

• Provide a range of architectural options,

each adapted to specific conditions of

residents;

• Recognise the historical quarters and

the emotional attachment of citizens to such

spaces;

• Incorporate, with greater integrity,

involvement of the citizens of Dharavi in the

process of transformation.

ConclusionsThe report outlines the importance of addressing the

diversity of needs and aspirations within Dharavi and

Mumbai at an institutional level by allocating suitable

room for manoeuvre within a relevant and responsive

policy framework. While criticising the DRP for not being

reflectively informed, nor seemingly acknowledging

the diversity present at multiple levels within Dharavi,

the report seeks to demonstrate means by which such

action can be taken.

005


01 ChapterINTRODUCTION

Locating Mumbai: a World Class City?Dharavi: the Heart of Contested Urbanism

Terms of Reference Theoretical Framework

Vision

This case of contested urbanism highlights land values and built densities at the core of the argument over Mumbai’s future, accentuating inequalities and driving the contest over space. The ingrained behaviour of the actors involved and their inter-relationships accentuate this conflictive nature.


1.1 Locating Mumbai: a World Class City? Mumbai is a locus of economic activity that attracts

both an influx of global capital as well as migrants

drawn from across the country in search of opportunity.

While the former forges avenues connecting Mumbai

into the global network of ‘world-class’ cities, the latter

are forced to negotiate a complex spatial-political

landscape where they lack adequate avenues of

representation and influence. At a spatial level migrants

are further challenged by the physical reality of the city:

located on a peninsula (Figure 1.1), Mumbai faces acute

pressure on land, resulting in over half the population of

the cityresiding in informal settlements or ‘slums’ (Patel,

D’Cruz and Burra, 2003: 160).

The economic liberalisation of India in the early

1990s marked a shift in priorities and the beginning

of Mumbai’s aspirations toward an outward looking,

ambitious vision of global competition. This was

manifested by the global consulting firm McKinsey &

Company Inc. in 2003 as contracted by Bombay First, an

elite citizen group seeking to make the city a better place

to live, work and invest in and aiming to serve the city

with the best that private business can offer. This vision,

endorsed and presently pursued by the municipal and

state government, simply stated means that “if Mumbai

has to be a World Class city then the slums have to go,

for which strong and urgent steps need to be taken. Any

encroachment of public property cannot be tolerated

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

(Mahadevia and Narayanan, 1999: 2)

1.2 Dharavi: the Heart of Contested Urbanism

Popularly known as Asia’s largest slum, Dharavi is

characterised by its strategic location in the centre of

Mumbai (Figure 1.2), and thus finds itself at the heart of

a challenging, highly contested debate over the future

of the city and its development process.

Dharavi has evolved in this context from a small fishing

village, whose genesis lies in the policy of demolition

and relocation the city followed for many years, where

squatters were pushed off valuable land in south

Mumbai and moved onto this swampy, unhygienic area

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

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

the land, make it habitable and just after this happens

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

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

008

Chambda Bazaar

Dharavi

Mumbai

Chambda Bazaar

Dharavi

Mumbai

Figure 1.1 Greater Mumbai

development pushed northwards, Dharavi became its

geographical centre. Currently it is located between

inner-city districts and the financial centre Bandra-

Kurla Complex, near Chhatrapati Shivaji International

Airport. Strong transportation connections link the

periphery of Dharavi to Mumbai, helping to make

Dharavi a focal area for development.

This case of contested urbanism highlights land

values and built densities at the core of the argument

over Mumbai’s future, accentuating inequalities

and driving the contest over space. The ingrained

behaviour of the actors involved and their complex

inter-relationships accentuate this conflictive nature.

Significant government and market pressure towards

becoming a world-class city and thus wiping out

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

inclusive development process by NGO groups such

as SPARC, grassroots organisations including Mahila

Milan and the NSDF and heterogeneous citizen groups

in Dharavi. These latter groups are diverse in nature,

and importantly in strategies and tactics, where groups

Dharavi

Bandra-Kurla Complex(BKC)

Dharavi

Bandra-Kurla Complex(BKC)

Figure 1.2 Dharavi

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 006

such as SPARC work in a model of critical engagement

with the state, grassroots groups organise and

collaborate at the local/community scale towards

creating alternative people-centred development

models, while citizen groups have a broad scope and

are difficult to characterise in a few adjectives, although

many actively resist the DRP. The Expert Advisory Panel

to the DRP, the one avenue for civil society engagement

in the Project, has the complex task of mediating these

conflicting demands towards its goals of making the

redevelopment process ‘more humane’.

Dharavi thus demands a shift in perspective to

recognise its diverse and conflictive nature both within

its boundaries and in relation to Mumbai as a whole.

There is a need for the production of policies and space

to inform each other in a mutually supportive fashion

through the recognition of livelihood assets. At an

institutional level, it is important that the diversity of

needs and aspirations within Dharavi and Mumbai be

addressed by allocating suitable room for manoeuvre

within a relevant and responsive policy framework.

While the challenges of scaling-up development are

recognised, readjusting the conceptual relationship

between a hutment dweller and a tenement dweller

as well as the physical translation of re-housing

and its livelihood impacts should be given primary

consideration in future redevelopment plans.

Implementing appropriate and relevant processes

within a tightly linked and responsive spatial-political

landscape creates a critical path where transformative

intentions can be realised and sustained.

Dharavi’s treatment by various government

organisations such as the Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai (MCGM), the Mumbai Metropolitan

Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and the

Government of Maharashtra (GoM) will not only

clearly reveal their true priorities in further developing

Mumbai, but it will also map uncharted spatial-political

territory, setting a precedent for future patterns of

development and the treatment of the informal sector

in India and beyond. There is a need to reflect upon

the nature and implications of such urban change in

the conflicted heart of Mumbai.

A Snapshot of Dharavi- Geographic area: 239 hectares

- Number of nagars (neighbourhoods): over 80

- Population size: Between 700,000 and 1 million

people

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

3 primary/secondary schools

- Economic activity: Annual turnover of business

is estimated at £350 million

- 23% of the population is employed in small scale

industries

- 70-80% of Dharavi’s workforce also reside there

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



1.3 Terms of ReferenceThe terms of reference for the work in Dharavi are as

follows:

1. To conduct an urban analysis of Chambda Bazaar,

aiming to explore its spatial integration in the wider

context, taking into consideration the strengths and

weaknesses of the proposed plans alongside assets and

livelihoods

2. To explore the experienced impact on livelihoods

in two in-situ development projects – Bharat Janata and

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

and the anticipated impact on livelihoods of the in-situ

development in Chambda Bazaar. Focus is specifically on

the spatial implications both for commercial structures

and home-based economic activities, namely exploring

the relationship between

a.Livelihoods and design for commercial

structures

b.Livelihoods and design for home-based

economic activities infrastructure

3. To explore with the different actors involved

(household members and community groups, NGOs, and

relevant government and private sector organizations)

proposals which will strengthen the in-situ development

in Dharavi in the future in a manner which will contribute

to their transformative intentions

1.4 Theoretical FrameworkIn the context of these terms of reference, it is critical to

clarify the entry point into the case, our understanding of

the concept of transformation, and the criteria by which

we judge the success of the Dharavi Redevelopment

Project’s (DRP) transformative intentions. This clarification

positions our outlook on the situation in relation to that

of established actors and guides our proposals aimed at

achieving such transformation.

Dharavi is located in a web of contested urbanism

through a perception of the production of space as an

inherently conflictual process, where various forms of

injustice are not only manifested, but produced and

reproduced (Dikeç, 2001: 1788).

Power in the redevelopment process is seen, through

a Foucaultian lens, as underlying all social relations,

being fluid in nature and having multiple sources. This

fragmented and unevenly distributed power prioritises

the vision of some actors over others. Transformation

is thus understood as a process that occurs as dominant

and resistant forces converge within a context of

cooperative conflict. This fundamentally alters the

production of space and policy, thus enabling the

enhancement of livelihoods through time. The concept

of livelihoods is understood as people, their capacity

and means of living, demonstrated by the confluence

of five distinct types of capital: human, social, physical,

financial, and natural (Chambers and Conway, 1991).

The production of space and policy is thus deemed

to be appropriate and relevant when the criteria of

diversity, adaptability, flexibility, and multiplicity are

present, and the critical integration of these criteria is

a prerequisite for sustaining a transformative process.

Within Dharavi, a linked spatial-political landscape,

transformation needs to elevate the negative notion of

hutment dwellers to recognised citizens as tenement

dwellers, and be facilitated by appropriate and relevant

participatory processes.

Cooperative conflict is a situation where the

inherent reality of conflict is recognised and all parties

work together in this contested context to reach an

agreed point that is constantly reconstructed and

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

conflicting forces, visions, identities and power relations

exist within Dharavi, where urban change is driven

by central dominant forces (DRP, MHADA, etc.) and

countered by peripheral resistant forces (the citizens of

Dharavi, SPARC, NSDF, etc.) that struggle for inclusion in

the process, with the latter’s claims negotiated by the

Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP. Some actors have

adopted strategies for inclusion and influence in this

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

Alliance of SPARC, NSDF and Mahila Milan, the first two

represented on the Expert Advisory Panel. An identified

platform for congruence is the productive capacity of

Dharavi, providing an opportunity for cooperation

within this contested environment. The desired result is

that the aspirations and assets of the citizens of Dharavi

become valued and included as integral parts of the

urban network at multiple scales. ‘Citizen’ is explicitly

used here as a political term to acknowledge a political

community, as well as the rights, obligations and claims

to which the state must be accountable (Friedmann and

Douglass, 1998: 1).


These primary criteria seek to ensure the appropriate and relevant production of space and policy. The critical integration of these criteria is a prerequisite for sustaining a desirable transformative process.

1.5 VisionDharavi stands at a threshold of heated debate fuelled

by market pressures and conflicting interests related to

the present reality and future image of Mumbai.

In the context of the movement towards a global,

universal city vision, we recognise the unique, multiple

and dynamic character of Dharavi alongside the need

to reconcile global demands with local aspirations

of Mumbai. Highlighting the capacities, diversity

and resilience of the citizens of Dharavi, we propose

strategies of transformation, inclusion, livelihood and the

production of building and urban forms must be critically

integrated within a flexible and responsive framework of

individual and cultural contexts and adaptations through

time.

The four criteria used as a basis for assessment in our analysis and used as the drivers of our proposals are:

Diversity:The plurality of identity and perception, both individual and collective, related to social, economic and spatial networks

Adaptability:The capacity to shape an ideological or strategic response within an existing constrictive framework

Flexibility:A fluid, versatile quality that effectively addresses divergent desires and priorities

Multiplicity:The amplification, fragmentation, and integration of formative processes in order to offer suitable solutions for different requirements

figure 1.5 diagram of actor pressures (adapted from Pieterse 2003)


References

BBC news channel, 2006. Life in a slum. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/ spl/hi/world/06/dharavi_slum/html/dharavi_slum_intro.stm]

Chambers R., Conway G., 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. Lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 8th of May 2009.

Dikeç Mustafa, 2001. Justice and the spatial imagination. Environment and Planning A. [http://www.envplan.com]

Friedmann J., Douglass M., 1998: Cities for Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age. Wiley, New York.

Levy Caren, 2007. Defining collective strategic action led by civil society organisations: the case of CLIFF, India. 8th N-AERUS conference held on the 6 September in London.

Mahadevia D., Narayanan H., 1999. Shanghaing Mumbai – Politics of Evictions and Resistance in Slum Settlements. Centre For Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad.

McKinsey & Company, 2003. Vision Mumbai: Transforming Mumbai into a world-class city. September, A Bombay First - McKinsey Report.

Patel S., D’Cruz C., Burra S., 2003. Beyond evictions in a global city: people-managed resettlement in Mumbai. Environment and Urbanization, vol 14, no 1, April 2002.

Sharma Kalpana, 2000. Rediscovering Dharavi. Penguin books India, Delhi.


010


02 ChapterMETHODOLOGY

ProcessAssumptions and Limitations

Livelihood profiles and network patterns would become a key theme throughout our research, informing our conceptual framework and analysis, and subsequently laying the foundation for our scenario proposals.


2.1 Process Due to the shifting location of our work, the

methodology used in this case evolved through time.

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

began in London on 23 January, 2009. A series of

lectures and presentations was complemented with a

vast literature review from books, academic journals

and websites. Information was then triangulated to

account for the various perspectives and potential biases

of authors’ in order to provide a clearer foundation for

mapping key actors involved in the case, as presented

for critical feedback in London in February 2009. The next

step, sustained until we left for the field in early May, was

the development of our diagnosis and strategies, which

again were provoked and challenged through feedback

in early May.

During our work in Mumbai, from 5 to 25 May, 2009,

the established methods of data collection continued to

expand and diversify alongside our perceptions of the

situation. Regular morning lectures from individuals and

representatives of the various actors were supplemented

with afternoon sessions on site in Dharavi, facilitated by

SPARC, KRVIA and Mahila Milan. Our fieldwork in Chambda

Bazaar, Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata consisted of field

observations and both semi-structured and informal

interviews with residents, with the goal of bridging

information gaps in the relationships between spatial

design, policy and livelihoods. Five interviews were

conducted with residents of Rajiv Indira, fourteen in Bharat

Janata, and around 50 interviews in Chambda Baazar,

with these including informal discussions alongside

more formal in-depth semi-structured interviews. Key

highlights from 24 of the in-depth interviews can be

found in Appendix 2. Mapping of urban form, economic

networks and livelihood patterns was also conducted in

Chambda Bazaar to link together spatial layout at the scale

of the individual nagar (neighborhood) with the whole of

Dharavi through extensive networks of production.

Livelihood profiles, as highlighted opposite, upper

right hand side and in Appendix 2, and network patterns

became a key theme throughout our research, informing

our conceptual framework and analysis, and subsequently

laying the foundation for our scenario proposals. The

first took shape through the semi-structured in-depth

interviews, where questions sought to understand

people’s capacities and means of living, specifically

drawing out the five forms of assets or capital: human,

social, physical, financial, and natural. Questions in these

semi-structured interviews were generally grouped

into broad categories of history, process and space, and

were formulated for use in the rehabilitation buildings

in Bharat Janata, then for home-based activities, for

manufacturing and retail in Chambda Baazar. These

questionnaires can be found in Appendix 1.

For our own reflective practice, a blog was created

to document and share our learning and challenges.

Individuals were open to express their reflections

through writing, photography or video, unpacking their

experience in a specific moment, day or of the entire

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

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

2.2 Assumptions and Limitations As with any research project there exist various

assumptions and limitations. In this case they positioned

the work within a reality yielding conscious recognition

of shortcomings and biases. The key limitation was the

restricted time we had in the field, where one and a half

afternoons were spent in Rajiv Indira, three and a half

in Bharat Janata, and seven afternoons in Chambda

Bazaar. Our time in Dharavi on these days were limited

from 15h00 to 18h00, meaning that we were unable to

witness, for example, changes in spatial use at different

times of the day, or to speak with a broader diversity of

individuals that may have not been present or visible

at this time of the day. The time constraints intensified

the selective, strategic decisions made in the field with

regards to the interviews conducted and the areas

prioritised for mapping.

In order to gather a sufficient representation of the

diversity within Dharavi, we set out to conduct as many

interviews as time constraints allowed. While attempts

were made to ensure that the vast diversity of people

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

recognised that our findings must be contextualised in

this limited timeframe and constraints we faced. Thus

our success cannot be fully comprehended without a

larger sample size of interviews and data collection. For

the purpose of this research, assumptions were made

that a sufficient and somewhat representative amount

of the huge diversity of people of Dharavi was captured,

thus meaning that our results and proposals are realistic

and plausible, responding to the requirements and

017DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

03 ChapterTOWARDS THE DHARAVI

REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT?Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums

Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Policy Comparison and Critique

Physical Proposals and Critiques Conflicting Visions of the DRP Conclusions

Several policies shape the influence of the DRP, which have been created for various reasons and have varying impacts on the residents of Dharavi. Using these policies as a starting point, it is then possible to imagine the physical territories they will chart. They have the potential to either further embed existing inequalities, or to chart new territory toward overcoming them.


Figure 3.1 figurea of evolution of governemnt approach to slums

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

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

government have engaged the issue since the 1950s

with very different approaches. While the latter have

a much greater relevance on housing matters, central

government is “the largest single owner of urban land in

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

After India’s independence in 1947, the first

government approach to the issue of slums has been

a harsh policy of clearance; slums were systematically

demolished without any consideration for the families

living on them.

The radical policy of slum clearance lasted more than

two decades, until in the ‘70s the evidence of the method

failure in addition to practical considerations called for a

change. The government perception of slums changed

from being a problem to a possible solution to the problem

itself. The main achievements of this decade have been

policies for the provision to slums of basic amenities

such as water and sanitation, the recognition of the

need to relocate slum dwellers affected by government

projects, and a census (1976) of slum dwellers living on

government land.

In the second half of the ‘80s the Bombay Urban

Development Project ran two programmes (Slum

Upgrading and Low-income Group Shelter Programme)

that although did not gave exceptional practical results,

have the merit of introducing the issue of land tenure

and the idea of financing housing for LIG through the

sale of properties to middle and upper income groups.

In the ‘90s the idea of cross-subsided projects for LIG

was consolidated, and due to World Bank pressure, the

Government of Maharashtra included resettlement and

rehabilitation has an integral part of every project. The

Government aims were to minimize resettlements in

favour of in-situ rehabilitation, to carry out the project

with a more participative approach and to maintain the

existing social networks.

An important step towards the recognition of slum

dwellers’ rights was made in 1995 with the approval

of the Slum Rehabilitation Act; this act protects from

eviction every citizen that can prove they have been

living in Mumbai since 1st January 1995 (subsequently


Figure 3.2 Mumbai, photo by Chirodeep Chaudhuri Figure 3.3 Mumbai, photo by Chirodeep Chaudhuri

modified to 1st of January 2000). In 2001 the Slum

Rehabilitation Act was amended and it was added that if

demolition was unavoidable in order to clear land, some

alternative accommodation must be provided for the

affected people.

3.2 Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment ProjectUnder conditions of global neoliberalism that have

characterised urban India from 1991 onwards, Mumbai

has around 13 million citizens, with an additional

7 million in the suburbs and increasing numbers

migrating from all parts of India over the past decades.

While Mumbai became India’s financial capital in this

period, at the same time over half the city’s residents live

in informal settlements. One of Mumbai’s main goals is

the transformation into a world-class city by shifting

its image from the location of Asia’s biggest slum to a

model of redevelopment (Mhaiskar lecture, 12 May

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

politicians intended to replace informal settlements

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

Due to its strategic geographical location and

pressures on the island city, as explained in section

1.2, the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) was

introduced as an integrated special planning area in

2004 and it was declared as a crucial public project by

the government of Maharashtra in 2007. The DRP has

been developed by the architect Mukesh Mehta to the

present.

Declared as a special planning area in 2004, the

Dharavi redevelopment Project (DRP) divides the area

into five sectors for development by five private sector

developers, to be selected through a transparent

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

envisions a spatial transformation from horizontal, low-

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

3.4); yet how will this change be manifested in reality

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

treat Dharavi residents as partners in the project and to

ensure that livelihood issues are adequately addressed in

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

no clear path or method for either to occur. Since the main

parts of the DRP are based on the Slum Redevelopment

Act, private developers are required to contribute to

improve infrastructure. Under the Slum Rehabilitation

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

social housing for the inhabitants on the site and in turn

benefit from additional for-sale buildings to generate

profits. However, these rules have been modified for the

area of Dharavi in the DRP.

3.3 Policy Comparison and CritiqueSeveral policies shape the influence of the DRP, which

have been created for various reasons and have varying

impacts on the residents of Dharavi. Using these policies

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

physical territories they will chart. They have the potential

to either further embed existing inequalities, or to chart

new territory toward overcoming them.

One Single SolutionAccording to the Maharashtra State Housing Policy

for slum rehabilitation, the in-situ redevelopment can

be implemented through a menu of options such as

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

Dharavi Redevelopment Project carries out in-situ

redevelopment through the implementation of a single

solution for the whole of Dharavi. This shows that the

DRP does not refer to the unique characteristics of place,

with over 80 different nagars in Dharavi whose diversity

cannot be sustained through a single alternative. In order

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

a more comprehensive plan, focusing on citizens’ wide-

ranging needs and aspirations.


Land TenureThe SRA secures land tenure as the basis for

redevelopment; however the DRP considers only unit

tenure rather than specifically the security of land tenure.

The matter of land tenure status in the DRP is unclear.

“The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM)

owns approximately 77 per cent of the land in Dharavi,

with the rest held by other government and private

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

used for various private leases and public purposes. The

issue of land tenure seems to be a challenge to the DRP

in cooperating with diverse interests between different

stakeholders. In addition, the DRP provides certain

residents with the security of unit tenure; hence it seems

that the DRP does not guarantee existing residents the

stable ownership of their house in the long term, leaving

a possibility that the inhabitant will be evicted in the

future.

Community ParticipationUnder the SRA, slum rehabilitation can be led by

housing cooperative societies in partnership with NGOs.

Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira are examples of SRA

projects in partnership with SPARC and the Alliance. Even

though the DRP mentions community participation, a

participatory approach in Dharavi’s redevelopment exists

Figure 3.4 DRP proposal sketch: Mumbai Mirror

Figure 3.5 negotiating the change from hutment deweller to tenement deweller

only in rhetoric at present. Dharavi’s citizens are thus not

considered and their spatial and livelihood requirements

and aspirations remain unrecognised.

EligibilityThe slum dwellers that can prove residence from

before 01 January 2000 are entitled to permanent

accommodation at no cost. The DRP is divisive at heart

since it segregates those who are eligible to be resettled

in the new rehabilitation units, (about 25% of the

population according to Gautam Chatterjee) from the

remaining residents of Dharavi, who are ineligible

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

ineligible will be left to find a new shelter and working

space on their own.

Transferrable Development RightsThe SRA scheme notes that the surplus of Floor

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

housing and infrastructure on site. The DRP uses the

surplus FSI as an incentive to the developers, who can

sell additional development rights on the open market.

It is quite evident that the surplus will contribute to the

developers’ interest in maximizing their profits. This

market driven policy will make it impossible to improve

the quality of existing residents’ living conditions.


008

A Snapshot of the DRP

- MCGM owns 76% of the land in Dharavi

- Division into 5 sectors, undertaken through a public-private partnership model by 5 different developers

- Stimulus FSI to be used as an incentive for developers

- Global FSI of 4.0 (compared to 2.5)

- 42% of land area for rehabilitation / 58% for market-sale construction

- All hutment dwellers on electoral rolls prior to 01 January 2000 are eligible for rehabilitation (one unit / family)

- ‘Podium’ Typology proposed as a singular solution

- 11-Member Expert Advisory Panel Assembled in 2008

- Socioeconomic Survey of Dharavi conducted by the NGO, MASHAL

- Formalises all economic networks, incrementally taxing the citizens of Dharavi

- Free rehabilitation units to be 269 sq. ft. internal area with 31 sq. ft. balcony

(Source: Chatterjee meeting, 16 May 2009)


Figure 3.6 DRP transformation in Dharavi

A Snapshot of the SRA - Hutments existing prior to 01 January 1995 are protected

- All hutment dwellers on electoral rolls prior to 01 January 1995 are eligible for rehabilitation (one unit / family)

- Eligible residential hutments are replaced with 225 sq. ft. structure on the same site

- Eligible commercial hutments are replaced with a max. 225 sq. ft. structure

- If 70% of eligible slum dwellers agree to form a co-op housing society, they can implement a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme

- The developer contributes money, labour, and construction materials for rehabilitation units

- Stimulus FSI to be used as an incentive for developers

(Source: http://www.sra.gov.in) Figure 3.4 DRP proposal sketch: Mumbai Mirror

Figure 3.5 negotiating the change from hutment deweller to tenement deweller


3.4 Physical Proposals and CritiquesFive Sectors

The Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) proposes

several physical alterations for Dharavi. The first and most

crucial point, in terms of spatial planning, is regarding

the division of Dharavi into five sectors. (Figure 3.7 and

3.8) These five sectors do not correspond to existing

community boundaries and social nagars in Dharavi. The

proposed division is made mainly by preserving partially

the existing road network and by considering the physical

layout of the road grid without understanding the social

and cultural complexities within that network. According

to this specific division, five different developers will

undertake the redevelopment for each sector. It is quite

evident that the developers will aim to maximise their

profits without acknowledging the social and cultural

richness of Dharavi. It is the state’s role, however, through

the developmental plans, to achieve a comprehensive

compromise between the needs of the developers and the

aspirations of the people. Additionally, according to the

DRP, 70% of new units are designated for rehabilitation;

the remaining 30% is for sale, while more than 80% of

this sale portion will be for commercial use, in order to

finance the project. This fact brings into doubt whether

the quality of the rehabilitation units will be equal to the

ones designated for sale.

Floor Space Index of 4Another important element of the DRP is the increase

of the Floor Space Index (FSI) from 2.5 to 4. This increase

is applied only to Dharavi. Moreover, the rehabilitation

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

but in some cases, depending on the regulations, the

number of floors will be increased to ten (G+10). The size

of the rehabilitation units provided for free to the eligible

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

400 sq. ft. with the payment of an extra construction

cost. This again raises questions the inclusiveness of the

project, since not everyone will able to meet the specific

requirements of DRP. Furthermore, the increased FSI will

contribute to higher urban densities, having massive

impacts not only on the physical layout but also on the

social and economic life of Dharavi.

Podium TypologyThe third key element of the DRP is the proposed

Figure 3.8 The 5 sector by Mehta

Figure 3.7 original Dharavi’s division in 85 nagars

podium typology (Figure 5.6). This image published in

the Mumbai Mirror newspaper illustrates quite clearly

the transformative intentions of the project. We can

see how Dharavi changes from a horizontal, low-rise

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

image the residential units will be placed on the top

floors of the buildings, while the commercial units will

be located at the ground and first floor. The parking

area will be on the third floor, just below the pedestrian

only podium level. An emergent issue from this is how

a monolithic typology can accommodate the daily

needs of people and their aspirations for future. Will the

proposed podium typology be able to accommodate

the current functioning of multi-scaled enterprises?

3.5 Conflicting Visions of the DRPGovernment Vision

“The project’s objective is their [Dharavi residents’]

mass economic upliftment by providing better


alternatives of living and business opportunities”

(Chatterjee, 2008).

“The single most crucial task is to convince and

convey the message to the 55,000 families of

Dharavi that the redevelopment is for their good

and that the government is doing it to scale up their

economic abilities” (Chatterjee, 2008).

Although the pressure towards the transformation

of Dharavi comes from many different actors, the

government is the initiator, driver and final decision

maker in the DRP, with government departments such

as MMRDA, MHADA and MCGM playing a primary role

in its development. Government statements about the

DRP highlight how the project has the aim of providing

better living conditions for the residents of Dharavi,

with a belief that upgradation can maybe take them

into a world class city (Chatterjee lecture, 8 May 2009).

Figure 3.9 illustrates the neoliberal trickle down vision

of development through the three key elements in the

transformation process as expressed by the Mumbai

Transformation Support Unit, the organisation created

to seek loans for mega projects and determine the

technical inputs needed to transform Mumbai into a

world-class city (Madan lecture, 12 May 2009). “The

Slum Redevelopment Authority is supportive of the

notion that the redevelopment of Dharavi should

generate resources for the government, even if that

means evacuating a portion of the residents and

increasing the population density of the area, which

is already one of the highest in the world” (Echanove,

2008). The argument that the philanthropic aim is not

the primary one is sustained by recent statements made

by government officers. The government’s vision for the

DRP remains positive, despite the long delays that the

project has suffered and the 2008 financial crisis, which

has caused several developers to withdraw their bids.

Private Sector Visions

“The Dharavi makeover plan requires huge

investments […] the original bid document required

all the 19 bidders to pay 10% of the project cost

upfront in the form of a bank draft” (Naik, 2009).

Considering the public private partnership model in

which the DRP is grounded, the government is placing

great value on the role of this actor for financing and

development; thus their opinion is highly relevant.

Mukesh Mehta, one of the key private sector developers

backing the development of the DRP, defends it based

on the critique of the previous SRA scheme and the

need of Dharavi residents to enjoy amenities such as

open spaces and infrastructure. According to Mr. Mehta

the adjective ‘sustainable’ is the one that best describes

the DRP, and at the Urban Age India Conference held in

Mumbai in 2007 he summarised the DRP objectives as

for rehabilitation of families and their businesses within

Dharavi. Mehta’s positive vision of the DRP is summarised

in his statement “We’re telling the slum-dwellers: ‘Instead

of the 100 sq. ft. space you are living in, you will have 225

sq. ft. Instead of sharing one toilet between 1,500, you

will have your own toilet, running water, well-lit homes.

We will provide schools, colleges and parks’ ”(2007). But

not all the developers see the DRP as a positive step; the

concerns of some developers are focused on financial

and procedural matters about the DRP’s feasibility. The

Mumbai based property developer Housing Development

& Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) provides an example of

a sceptical vision of the DRP: “the project has become

unviable and we are not sure when it will take off. There

is uncertainty over the bidding process and the premium

the government is asking. We do not want to look at

projects which run over four to five years. Today, capital

is not coming that easily and we do not want to invest a

single rupee in an unviable project” (Pandey, 2009).

The international firm HOK voluntarily prepared an

alternative proposal to the DRP alleging that “today’s

redevelopment effort threatens Dharavi’s contributions”

(HOK, 2008).

“The current developer-oriented process puts forth

an approach based on divided, discrete superparcels

Figure 3.9 Transformation process of Indian cities towards a world class city


that may disregard the generations of culture, scale and

texture that define this vibrant and relevant community”

(ibid.). (Figure 3.10)

NGOs and Research Institutions’ Visions

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

the poor while really gentrifying the area” (Patel cited

in the Economist, 2005).

“Even if they do re-house everyone, they are not

likely to allow the residents much say in what kind of

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

“Even if everyone, including Dharavi’s residents,

agree that redevelopment is needed so that the dirt

and the filth is replaced by decent living conditions

and security of tenure, is the style and form of

development chosen by the government the most

appropriate for Dharavi?” (Sharma, 2008).

NGOs such as SPARC have a critical vision of the DRP,

but at the same time maintain a close and highly strategic

relationship with government bodies in order to function

as facilitators between different institutional levels. The

main concerns expressed by NGOs regarding the DRP

refer to the relocation of residents, the complete lack of

an inclusive process and the possible consequences of a

government/market-driven process of redevelopment.

The main academic institution that has collaborated with

the Alliance (SPARC, NSDF, and Mahila Milan) is the Kamla

Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture (KRVIA).

The school’s director commented that the DRP does

not provide enough detail and is a tool for negotiation

rather than implementation, and expressed concern that

it is fundamentally driven by real estate returns (Anirudh

lecture, 6 May 2009). Further concerns were shared

about the excessive population density of Dharavi and

the inaccurate demographic survey, which may lead to

future plans based on incorrect calculations (ibid.).

Residents’ Visions

“Who says Dharavi does not belong to us? Our

forefathers from Saurashtra came to south Mumbai

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

us land, but our entire colony was burnt down.

Then some powerful Gujarati traders pressured the

government and 12.50 acres (5 hectares) of land in

Dharavi was allocated to us against a payment of

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

Dharavi’s Kumbharwada (potters’ settlement) is

located belongs to us…” (Raju Chauhan, Dharavi

resident, cited on World Prout Assembly).

“I will be very happy for the redevelopment plan.

If I have a good place for my business I want to

stay. Change has to come. But here people are

emotionally attached to each other. They don’t

want to leave. They have everything here and they

are happy. But change must happen. The airport

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

work but if I cannot stay I’m willing to negotiate for

a good place. We are preparing for this. We have to

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

industry owner in Dharavi, interviewed on 11 May

2009).

The previous statements summarise the different

vision that the residents of Dharavi expressed: there

are sceptical groups that have been living in Dharavi for

many generations and are ready to fight if their rights

are not respected, then there are other more moderate

groups that do not oppose the redevelopment plan, but

are aware of the dangers that it may imply and therefore

they want to be part of the process.

Dharavi residents are an extremely diverse group,

divided by social status, religion, origin, gender and

age and their multiplicity of visions reflects this; such

diversity is at the heart of the difficulty of reaching a

general consensus. But the diversity of Dharavi is not the

only challenge towards a more inclusive redevelopment:

an attempt of setting up a group of representatives for

the residents of Dharavi was made on January 2009 with

the creation of a consultative committee, the Advisory

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

members from different backgrounds were selected and

invited to make recommendations to the government

on different practical and organizational aspects. The

committee’s task of steering the government decisions

toward a more needs-focused approach through the

translation of a possible general consensus into planning

and policies proposals will not be easy and there is no

certainty that it will make a real difference on the final

implementation of the DRP.


3.6 ConclusionsThese main physical proposals of the DRP cannot

address the findings of our analysis. The basic difference

is in regards to the identified informality and complexity

found in Dharavi, which links space with living and

working. This informality allows the co-existence of

businesses with social life, transforming Dharavi into a

vibrant economy and society. The new proposed spatial

layout does not take into account this fundamental

specificity of life in Dharavi, and will result in the break

down of cohesive social bonds. Furthermore, the existing

multiplicity of space, in terms of usage, is lost because

the new typologies strictly segregate commercial and

residential units. The public communal spaces, utilised

before to nurture livelihood activities, can now barely

preserve this specific functionality. At the policy level,

this single solution is not a strategic response within

the constrictive framework of Dharavi. Moreover is not

flexible enough for addressing the divergent desires

and priorities of the citizens. Additionally, the fact

that community participation is restricted both in the

decision-making and design processes does not respond

to the multiple character of Dharavi both in terms of use

and function. Finally, the DRP policies are not inclusive

for all the citizens of Dharavi, as the accommodation

they propose concerns only eligible residents. In this

way, diversity in terms of plurality of identity and

perception cannot be tackled. An inclusive approach

would respond to the needs of all. It is apparent that the

production of space and policy through the plans and

guidelines of the DRP cannot integrate the four primary

criteria – diversity, multiplicity, adaptability, flexibility –

as assessed in our conceptual framework.

REFERENCES

Arputham J., Patel S., 2007. An offer of partnership or a promise of conflict in Dharavi, Mumbai?. Environment and urbanization, Sage Publication.

Anirudh Paul, 2009. “A Critique of the Government Plan: Dharavi Redevelopment Project”. Lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 6th of May.

Burra Sundar, 2005. Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading in Mumbai, India. Environment and Urbanization, Sage Publications. [http://www.sagepublications.com]

Business Standard, 2009. Dharavi: HDIL won’t bid directly. Published by RaghavendraKamath the 10th March.[http://www.businessstandard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=351397]

Chatterjee Gautam, 2008. We are modifying development rules to give rise to a new city. Interview by Madhurima Nandy appeared on the livemint.com on 26th August 2008. [http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/25234629/We-are-modifying-developmentr.html]

Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. Cited in Business India, February 8, 2009. p.104.

Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. “Role of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA)” lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 8th of May.

Chauhan Raju, 2007. Dharavi’s real estate threat. Appeared on World Prout Assembly webpage on the 1st of December. [http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/11/dharavis_real_e.html]

Echanove Matias, 2008. SRA & Mukesh Mehta. Article appeared on the website www.Dharavi.org on 27th of February.[http://www.dharavi.org/index.php?title=G._Surveys,_Projects,_Designs_%26_Plans_or_Dharavi/Projects/SRA_%26_Mukesh_Mehta]

Madan U.P.S., 2009. “Mumbai Transformation”, lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 12th of May.

Mhaiskar Milind, 2009. “Role of MMRDA and Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) under Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP)”, presentation at SPARC khetwadi office on the 12th of May.

Mehta Mukesh, 2007. Asia’s biggest slum set to turn into India’s Madison Avenue. Published in City Scape and Newsbytes on the 7th of August. [http://propertybytes.indiaproperty.com/?p=1323]

Pande Hari, 2009. “Redeveloping Dharavi is not viable for us: HDIL”. Article appeared in Rediff online on the 10th of March. [http://www.rediff.com/money/2009/mar/10redeveloping-dharavi-is-not-viable-for-us-hdil.html]

Patel Sheela, 2005. Inside the slums. Published on the Economist the 27th of January 2005. [http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3599622]

Sharma Kalpana, 2008. The pressure on slumlands. Appeared on Infochange in April 2008. [http://infochangeindia.org/200804107053/Agenda/Battles-Over-Land/The-pressure-on-slumlands.html]

027

02DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

04 ChapterCURRENT REALITY IN DHARAVI:

ANALYSIS AND EMERGENT ISSUES

Context, scope and framework for analysisExperienced impact on livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira

Urban analysis of Chambda BazaarAnticipated impact of in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Bazaar

Summary of analysis and findings: moving into the Scenarios

The overall aspiration of the people toward policy is to facilitate a transformation that benefits future generations. Spatial environment, though important was a secondary concern behind maintaining livelihoods and promoting better educational prospects.


The information collected from interviews and observations at the given sites were filtered through the analytical concepts of policy, livelihoods and space and the four criteria – diversity, adaptability, flexibility and multiplicity – that form the theoretical framework. As illustrated in Figure 4.1, in each section of the analysis the findings are located at the appropriate in-tersection, with three circles used to illustrate the link of an issue to the framework. A solid circle indicates a positive outcome or a strong relationship, a white circle illustrates a negative outcome or weak relation-ship, and a striped circle shows partially positive and negative outcomes or strong and weak relationships. The figures in each subsection of Section 4.2 analyse the experienced impact on livelihoods in Bharat Jana-ta and Rajiv Indira, while figures in subsections of 4.4 use the framework to analyse both the experienced reality (i.e. what was observed in the field) alongside the anticipated impacts of in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Baazar.

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

4.1 Context, scope and framework for analysis

Transformation is a dynamic process that is not new to Dharavi. Slum rehabilitation projects in the area first began in 1985 under the Prime Ministers Grant Project, housed within the Maharastra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), where redevelopment was intended for Dharavi by providing new infrastructure, reconstructing cooperatively owned housing for its inhabitants and relocating 20,000 families within the rest of the city (Mukhija, 2003: 42-45). In direct response to the concerns arising especially from the latter, NGOs such as SPARC, who had recently formed an Alliance with the NSDF, began to work in Dharavi with the initial intention to stop all evictions (ibid.). SPARC’s role in the Alliance evolved over the next decade, alongside policy changes to the Slum Rehabilitation Act (SRA) in 1995, into one of a non-profit developer Cooperative Housing Societies. The analysis seeks to understand the experienced im-pact on livelihoods of these two rehabilitation projects under the SRA policy (Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira), to outline the results of the urban analysis of Dharavi’s Chambda Bazaar area and to identify the anticipated impact of potential developments in the latter.

030


4.2 Experienced impact on livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira

4.2.1 Introduction to the Rajiv Indira Housing Cooperative

Located on the northern edge of Dharavi Rajiv (Figure 4 .2) Indira was inaugurated as a completed project in February 2002. Fifty-four families formed the Rajiv Indira Cooperative Housing Society in March 1995 and by 1999 the project included two

other Societies, creating a total of 209 families for rehabilitation. With SPARC as the developer, this project was the first undertaken by an NGO under the SRA, where five apartment blocks have been built and each tenement received 225 square feet. Three buildings have been used to house community members and the other two buildings have been sold on the market to make up costs and generate profits (Nirman, 2003).

The Rajiv Indira-Suryodaya Cooperative Housing Society

-Number of families to directly benefit: 209

-Projected total cost: £1,842,306

-Projected total cost recoveries: £2,365,552 - TDR sales (69%) Residential unit sales (21%) Commercial unit sales

(9%)

-Projected peak finance requirement and sources (in order of size): £1,066,055 (Citibank- baked by a £50,000

guarantee from Homeless International), fresh CLIFF and SPARC/Nirman (including recycled CLIFF)

-Other resources leveraged: Land (government) and infrastructure (government)

Source: Homeless International, 2008:10

Figure 4.2 Rajiv Indira location within Dharavi area

031


Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society

-Site area: 2,507 square metres, each household receives a 225 square foot unit.

-Number of families to directly benefit : 147

-Projected total cost : £1,020,443

-Projected total cost recoveries: £1,317,498 Residential unit sales (57%) TDR sales (37%), -Commercial unit sales

(5%)

-Projected peak finance requirement and sources (in order of size) £616,537

(National Housing Bank backed by a £85,353 guarantee from Homeless International), fresh CLIFF and SPARC/

Nirman (including recycled CLIFF)

-Other resources leveraged: Land (government) and infrastructure (government)

Source: Homeless International, 2008:10

Figure 4.3 Bharat Janata location within Dharavi area

4.2.2 Introduction to the Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society

One hundred and forty-seven families formed the

Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society in 1991 after

seeing the work and progress of the Rajiv Indira. The

agreement with SPARC was made in 1991, the demolition

of huts began in 2003, and hutment dwellers moved into

the three completed buildings in 2006. The construction

project is still in progress: two more blocks with 50 units

for sale are yet to be built. Located in the ‘middle’ of

Dharavi (Figure 4 .3), the site does not have the roadside

‘edge’ advantage of other in-situ redevelopment

projects; part of SPARC’s motivation was to illustrate

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

Alliance’s hypothesis that Dharavi has an internal market

for residential and commercial units (Kantha, n.d).

032


4.2.3 Analysis and main findingsCommercial activities

While the Rajiv Indira Cooperative Housing Society

has no members holding commercial permits providing

entitlement to commercial space in a redevelopment

project, the Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society

has five members with registered commercial activities

(Figure 4.4). These members lived on the second floor

and ran their businesses on the ground floor; currently,

four of the five rent their residential/commercial

structure.

Analysis found that the SRA policy creates a trade-

off for owners of both commercial units and residential

space located in the same structure to choose between

one or the other. In Bharat Janata, all five owners chose

the former and forwent the latter. As three buildings

have been already constructed while two are yet to be

built, the new commercial spaces will be relocated in

the ground floor of the fourth building.

An interview with one commercial establishment

renter highlighted concerns about the future location

inside a compound and off the road, possibly reducing

business, increasing rent and requiring new residential

accommodation in Dharavi or elsewhere. Findings

illustrate that the SRA policy fails to recognise the

multiplicity of use in existing building structures, therefore

rendering itself inflexible to people’s requirements and to

individuals’ adaptability over time.

033

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


While the households interviewed reported overall

satisfaction with their conditions, the challenges for

large scale home-based activities in the shift from

horizontal to vertical living need to be addressed at a

policy level. At present, SRA policy does not recognise

the multiplicity of activities and use of space inside flats

nor the flexibility of space as an issue to be addressed in

order to give people the opportunity to arrange space

according to their needs, instead being forced to adapt

their livelihood within restricted space.

A wealth of small scale home-based activities also

exist in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira, including making

plastic bags, hairnets, metal sponges and tailoring,

as illustrated in Figure 4.6. These small scale activities

form part of a wider chain of production that connects

people living in buildings with the rest of Dharavi

and its economic networks. Households interviewed

in Bharat Janata often found it necessary to earn a

supplementary income in order to pay their allotted

building maintenance costs, such as the lift and water

pump for example, that cost Rs. 400 per household

per year, as well as individual electricity bills averaging

Rs. 300 per household per month. Policy again does

not recognise the multiplicity of use of space nor the

flexibility as issues to be addressed regarding small scale

home-based activities

These small scale activities form part of a wider chain

of production that connects people living in buildings

with the rest of Dharavi and its economic networks.

Households interviewed in Bharat Janata often found it

necessary to earn a supplementary income in order to

pay their allotted building maintenance costs, such as

the lift and water pump for example, that cost Rs. 400

per household per year, as well as individual electricity

bills averaging Rs. 300 per household per month. Policy

again does not recognise the multiplicity of use of space

nor the flexibility as issues to be addressed regarding

small scale home-based activities.

Home based activities

Home-based activities exist at different scales in Rajiv

Indira and Bharat Janata. Larger-scale activities, informal

in nature and requiring space at least equivalent to half

a flat or more, required significant adaptation to new

conditions, and people showed great capacity in doing

so, as illustrated in Figure 4.5.

The few cases of larger-scale home-based activities investigated have adapted to the restricted space for their work, with improved working and living conditions.

Figure 4.5 Larger-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram.

034


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

Fractured social networksOver fifty percent of women and teenagers

interviewed experience a sense of social isolation

in moving from hutment dwelling to tenement

dwelling. Numerous interviewees explained how the

physical layout of their hutments was more conducive

to socialising, as the doors and windows faced the

street and were always kept open, and interaction

with others was spontaneous, frequent and dynamic.

While all interviewees expressed an improvement in

their quality of life, many noted that the relationship

between neighbours is now weaker and lives are more

individualised. In Bharat Janata, the corridor spaces on

each floor where the doors of the apartments open are

empty as people prefer convening and socialising on the

ground floor (Figure 4.7).

Some women interviewed have adapted to high-rise

living by setting up a daily meeting time on the ground

floor of the building. It is evident that policy does not

recognise the multiplicity of ways in which people

use space, thus not providing enough spatial diversity

to meet people’s habits and ways of living, especially

regarding communal life.

Figure 4.7 physical layout of interaction space in the previous and the current situation and corresponding analytical diagram


Communal space around the buildingsIn both Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira the preferred

communal areas were the open spaces on the ground

floor interspersed between buildings. Despite the

evident need by residents for such social gathering

spaces, the design of these areas has been neglected in

terms of both quality and functionality. Regarding the

first, well constructed, good quality communal space is

important to improve social cohesion among residents,

especially children as illustrated in Figure 4.8. Policy

fails to consider the quality of such spaces around SRA

buildings, an important issue as such areas change and

adapt through time.

In terms of functionality, people spoke of and were

observed to use the space within the Bharat Janata

building compound in many different ways, as illustrated

in Figure 4.9.

While many children play on the ground floor, in Rajiv

Indira (Figure 4.10) most adults use the open corridors

to socialise, perhaps reflecting the transitory nature of

the first space as it is next to the ‘edge’ of Dharavi and

located on a main path inside. Both in Bharat Janata and

Rajiv Indira the diversity of activities and the multiplicity

of use of such communal spaces in terms of functionality

of design are not recognised at the policy level.

Dhandesh, 14 years, BJ “We play on the ground floor of the building but often when we are running around we fall and hurt ourselves. We would like to have a better area to play”

Figure 4.8 The quality of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram

036


Figure 4.9 The use of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) with current plan location and corresponding analytical diagram

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


Participation in designWhen interviewees were asked about their

involvement in the design process, the majority

answered positively (example in Figure 4.11). Yet as

these responses were unpacked, it became clear that the

concept of ‘participation’ in regards to design of units was

more appropriately defined as ‘informing’. In the case of

Rajiv Indira, the residents were presented four (4) options

by the architects before one was selected by the Society

Committee. In Bharat Janata, only one unit option was

provided. Virtually all the residents interviewed regard

the architect as expert and therefore fail to recognize their

potential voice in the design process. The majority of the

women spoken to had little or no direct knowledge of

the process, having been passively informed of meeting

results by their husbands.

While recognizing the contributions and mobilizing

efforts of the Alliance, it is this disregard for particular

attention to spatial use and diversity of residents that

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

038

4.3 Urban analysis of Chambda BaazarChambda Bazaar, strategically located at the center

of Dharavi, has been the locus of growth of commercial

clusters for over a century, as illustrated in (Figure

4.12a,b,c). At present the informality and the strategic

location of the district offers flexibility of space and

livelihoods, attracting migrant populations of different

regions, cultures and religions. A unique character

district with a diverse mix of livelihoods functioning

at different scales of the business network and having

varying spatial demands, the urban analysis unpacks

issues of urban density, land use and its relationship to

livelihoods.

“Bombay Guide Map”: Map by Surveyor General of India, showing High Density built form in some

Figure 4.12b Dharavi development in 1969

Ravi- Bharat Janata community leader “We have been involved in the design process, the architect showed the plan to the eleven members of the housing cooperative and then we put the plan on the wall so the community could see it.”

emerges as a key critique and finding of our analysis.

In additional interviews with members of SPARC it was

made clear that primary concern in these pilot projects

was re-housing citizens. Spatial design was treated with

a standard, acceptable approach by local architects that

were appointed for their experience and sensibility to

the area and situation. While recognizing the learning

curve involved in pilot projects, especially those

undertaken by a grassroots initiative, we assert that

greater attention be given to spatial needs that arise

from multiplicity of use. The idea of participation is deep

with subjective situational interpretations. Re-housing

people may have been the primary objective of SPARC

in these cases, though when dealing with the physical

construction of a building, the design and impact it has

on social progress and commercial sustainability, must

not be relegated.

On a wider scale, overall analysis illustrates that SRA

policy fails to consider the true involvement of people

in the design process, a fundamental component

used to identify the diversity of requirements within

the community. The lack of appropriate inclusion into

the design process renders an inflexible policy and

thus a holistically inappropriate provision of space. An

emerging consequence seen in the two case studies

and other SRA projects is that people are forced to

continuously adapt a standardized space to meet their

family needs and livelihoods.


“Bombay Guide Map”: Map by Surveyor General of India, showing High Density built form in some

Figure 4.12b Dharavi development in 1969

Present Situation: Dharavi at present with Chambda Bazaar showing the Highest density of built form.

Figure 4.12c Dharavi development in 2008

“Bombay Guide Map Including Parts of Salsette”: Map by Surveyor General of India, showing further in-creased built form.

Figure 4.12a Dharavi development in 1933

Figure 4.14 Land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar

Figure 4.13 Major road linkages throughout Dharavi

Location and Accessibility: The triangular area

defining Chambda Bazaar has emerged as a predominantly

commercial district due to its strategic location near the

Bandra Kurla Complex and good road-rail connectivity

with the rest of the city: three railway stations are found on

Dharavi’s edges, with Sion station used largely by people

in Chambda Bazaar. St. Rotides Marg and Cross Road link

the Dharavi Main Road and the 90 Feet Road, the latter

two being the most important north-south road linkages

inside Dharavi (Figure 4.13). All other internal roads are

pedestrian.

The Density and Land use: Chambda Bazaar

currently has a high residential tenement density of 706

per hectare (KRVIA, 2007), with both purely residential

high rise clusters in the middle to home based commercial

working units spread all over (Figure 4.14). The district,

8,478 square metres bounded by three main peripheral


Open spaces: Activities including community

gatherings, play areas, festivals and marriages happen

in open spaces adjacent to the communities using such

areas (Figure 4.15a, b). These spaces were observed to be

good quality and well maintained by a key actor, found to

be either the local political party office, youth club, place

of worship, or religious community. Stakeholders of such

spaces were quite positive, valuing them as part of their

recreational life and living area for the community. They

are mostly covered and paved to protect from monsoon

flooding and heat, as well as well lit and under constant

community surveillance, perceived to be safe by both

women and children. The network of open spaces is

discontinuous, guided through labyrinth streets. dozen

of ‘nagars’ or neighborhoods.

Figure 4.15b Activities around shared open space

Figure 4.15a Use of open space



4.4 Anticipated impact of in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Baazar

4.4.1 Commercial activityA diverse spectrum of commercial activities was

encountered in Chambda Baazar, ranging from large

scale bakeries to small scale candy store owners.

Established enterprises were mostly related to jewellery

making, leather goods, garments and baked goods.

Small scale commercial activities were largely retail

shops that sometimes run small production units in

or outside a residence contributing to a larger chain of

production (Figure 4.16). Otherwise they cater to the

local market and are dependent on customers inside

Dharavi.

The size of the enterprise often depends on both

the trade and the level of networks in which they are

situated. The location of the business was dependent

upon the local entrepreneurs who preferred working

in clusters according to their regional and/or religious

background.

The overall aspiration of the commercial enterprise

owners was to retain their existing flow of goods and

network of customers.

Figure 4.16 Production chain at various geographical scales

The tanned leatherfrom Chennai is processed

within Dharavi.

Final product of leather( leather jackets) is sold

Outside of Dharavi

Customer networks throughout India

The tanned leatherfrom Chennai is processed

within Dharavi.

041


Figure 4.17 Various scales of commercial enterprise

Excluded users of space Official documents and interviews made evident the

fact that the Dharavi Redevelopment Plan (DRP) does

not recognise the rights of renters, transient tenants nor

the multiplicity of uses of one structure by families or

enterprises. At present a large section of the commercial

activities in Chambda Baazar are reliant on migrant

workers who work for free or nominal remuneration, such

as the provision of food and shelter. Multiple business

owners living within Dharavi often give dormitory spaces

for these transient workers the within their commercial

clusters (Figure 4.18). Most single enterprise owners are

reliant on skilled workers and provide them with food as

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

are dependent on public amenities provided within the

cluster. Such flexible conditions of work-live and the

adaptations owners have made through time to address

their labourers’ needs is not addressed in SRA policy.

small scale candy shop

medium scale embroidery shop

large scale bakery

042

Diversity of commercial activities and multiplicity of space

Commercial activities within Chambda Baazar have

thrived because of their flexibility, diversity, adaptability

and multiplicity in the present informal scenario.

Enterprises researched illustrate how, over generations,

small to medium scale businesses such as gem and

jewellery makers have leveraged their locational

advantage and responded to local demand while, large

scale bakery owners, for example, have clustered and

diversified their commercial activities (Figure 4.17). Such

cases demonstrate the ability of individuals driving

commercial activities, in terms of financial, physical and

human resources, to adapt, diversify and transform their

enterprises in order to secure future benefits.

Yet the SRA policy and the DRP does not recognise the

potential financial power of these enterprises to pay for

the multiple spatial requirements necessary to support

their diverse economic network to secure their business

in the future.


“I am the third generation who has been in this

jewellery business. I currently live outside Dharavi while

my workers are living within. My customers are local

which I depend on heavily. I personally do not want any

changes. My customers will be displaced and I could

lose this network. I do not like the mall typology. These

cluster enterprise works best because it retains the

profits.”

Lack of community involvementInterviews with Chambda Baazar commercial owners

illustrated a lack of transparency and information

regarding the Dharavi Redevelopment Plan (DRP), and

that no attempts have been made to initiate community

involvement in the plan. In absence of any organisation

of workers looking after their rights, the treatment of the

workers differs in diverse trades. At present, they have

no collective voice in the DRP and their future in Dharavi

depends on their employers. The vast population of

migrant workers, the powerhouse Dharavi, would be

forced to move out of Dharavi to live and commute to

work, which implies the increases labour price with

further consequences. The SRA policy, defining stringent

criteria for inclusion in the project, might disrupt the

smooth functioning economic network of Dharavi, a

situation that takes priority over domestic needs.

Live and work tenements of workers (generally migrants) are spatially located in proximity to or within the business units where they are employed.

Figure 4.18 Live/work space (migrant workers)

043


4.4.2 Home based commercial activity

Diversity of home-based activities Small scale home-based commercial activities found

in Chambda Bazaar are usually undertaken by women

to supplement the main income of the household,

where their activities form one step in a larger chain of

production (Figure 4.19). These production chains, that

have different scales of manufacturing, benefit from the

diversity and flexibility of the social networks existing

in the area, as employers can informally ask women to

finish the work quicker than usual or to share work with

friends and neighbours if difficult schedules have to be

met. This kind of flexibility allows the workshops to run

more efficiently and highlights the current mutually

beneficial organisational network, sustained by informal,

long-standing relationships built on reliance and trust

between employers and employees. Relocation of the

workshops or formalisation of these networks will reduce

flexibility and may hinder the growth of the existing

diverse networks. SRA policy fails to understand the

diversity and flexibility of space and networks that home-

based commercial activities require.

Figure 4.19 Different scale home-based commercial

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

044


Larger scale traditional home-based businesses run

by entire families that can be comparable to a medium

scale commercial enterprise also exist in Chambda

Bazaar. Working from home, families can capitalise on

the contribution of all family members; this adaptation

to maximise human resources is critical for successfully

sustaining larger scale home-based activities, as

illustrated by the stories in (Figure 4.20).

Multiplicity of Spaces Residential and commercial tenements are often

very small and have a multiplicity of co-existing uses,

for example as a shop, for daily living, as a work space

and storage space, meaning that many activities are

extended into open space outside the main structure.

While the existing hutments provide relatively easy

access to communal spaces, and people have adapted to

such practices, the situation is far from convenient. The

variations of activities in single spaces gives open spaces

a diverse character as demonstrated by Figure 4.21. The

multiplicity of use of space highlights the adaptation that

has taken place in response to the lack of space as well

as infrastructure. While younger people find communal

spaces to be enjoyable and colorful and providing an

opportunity to socialise, older people find it difficult to

climb up and down very steep stairs many times a day

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

allow residents to adapt their homes to the needs of their

family. Marriages result in more family members and it is

common to extend the current house by building another

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

in high-rise dwellings and families could potentially get

fragmented, as members of the same family will have to

find alternate housing options.

Figure 4.20 Different scale home-based commercial

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

Household: BilkisSmall Scale

Household: BilkisSmall Scale

small scale Household: Bilkis

medium scale Household: Fakir Ahmed Azaad

EXPERIENCED REALITY

ANTICIPATED IMPACT

045


Recognition of diverse activities Policy also underestimates the current multiplicity

of spaces. For instance, the DRP guidelines aim

to provide 6% commercial space in each building

that is supposed to accommodate the commercial

activities of all residents of the building. While small

scale home-based activities can continue within

the tenements, activities that need more space

such as Mr. Azaad’s tabla making business cannot

be sustained in such circumstances. A small scale

home-based activity that is substantially common is

papad making. Currently the papad makers have the

flexibility to use open spaces, needed to make and

dry the product during the day, according to their

needs. When interviewed they reported their work

would be seen as a disruption in buildings where

open spaces would be very limited and regulated.

Residential and commercial tenements are often very small and are used for shops, daily living, work space and storage at the same time, extending many activities like to the outside of the main structure.

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

Residents have easy access to groud floor and open spacesExtention of households chores into open spaces

Papad makers use communal open spaces for commercial activites

EXPERIENCED REALITY ANTICIPATED IMPACT

046

Figure 4.21b analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (diverse spatial use)


4.5 Summary of analysis and findings: moving into the Scenarios

The ability to determine ones own future is a key

aspect of transformation. Our research in Rajiv Indira,

Bharat Janata and Chambda Bazaar emphasises this

point, having revealed the socio-economic capacity to

adapt spatially, thus sustaining activities and livelihoods.

Adaptability was found to be high and inherent amongst

all families and enterprises interviewed, despite the vast

degree of diversity.

Dharavi, known for its diverse productive nature,

contains a widespread international network heavily

dependent on skilled and unskilled migrant workers

and entrepreneurs. Their exclusion from SRA policies

and the DRP not only carries individual implications,

but also a fear in the decreasing availability of cheap

labor, leading to an increase in the overall cost of the

production. A major consequence here lies in the

spectrum of financial capacity of Dharavi, as certain

wealthier citizens and potential investors could take

their business elsewhere thus dissolving the rich

economy of the area.

A significant aspect of this stimulated economy

are home-based livelihood activities, where social and

economic practices unfold within multi-functional

spaces, branding the dwelling with an important dual

value. Beyond the physical and productive values, an

emotional investment exists that creates a sense of

belonging in the residents.

This is especially evident in older nagars such as

Chambda Bazaar where dwellings have stood for more

than three generations, symbolising strong family

heritage. However, current policies lack sensitivity

in regards to historical value and more importantly

the recognition of rights in terms of tenured land

ownership.

Perhaps more central to our analytical framework

and conceptual framework in terms of policy limitations

is the lack of inclusionary processes. The failure of non-

transparent policy provisions have created disparity

between authorities and citizens. In regards to the

spatial design of the SRA projects studied, there

appeared to be a general lack of clear participatory

strategy. People were informed about the project, but

not necessarily involved in their schematic production,

thus the multiplicities and diversities of spatial use and

networks were largely ignored. The levels of adaptability

and flexibility were transferred to the individuals alone

rather than incorporated into the plans. While these

observations are arguably the responsibility of a particular

projects’ inception, they represent the general lack of

policy attention. On-site research in Chambda Bazaar

revealed further disparities in the fact that many people

were unclear as to the specificities of the DRP and the

potential implications it held for them. In this case, the

desire for broader informative mechanisms is essential

alongside more attentive processes of inclusion.

The overall aspiration of the people towards policy

is to facilitate a transformation that benefits future

generations. Spatial environment, though important

was a secondary concern behind maintaining livelihoods

and promoting better educational prospects. Analysis

has shown a resiliency of people to adapt challenges

created by new situations and to expand their social

and economic capacities. The limits of their capacity,

however, call for greater inclusion amongst the policy-

making processes that in turn regulate social and spatial

transformation. The following scenarios illustrate a

shifting of our analysis and findings towards informing

proposals that conceptually address these notions of

inclusion and participation around policy, space and

livelihoods in order to address the adaptability, flexibility,

multiplicity and diversity within urban redevelopment.

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.Homeless International, 2008. Cliff Annual review 08. Astwood Design Consultancy.)

Kantha Binti, n.d. Slum rehabilitation in Bharat Janata housing cooperative project. SPARC. Unpublished.

047

05 ChapterBRIDGING THE GAP:

RATIONALE FOR THE SCENARIOS

At the critical point of defining the conceptual approach of our proposals, based on our analysis, findings and vision, a significant disparity became evident in the choice of where these should be focused. Finding a balance between the DRP vision and the Alternative Visions was obviously critical but this was primarily constrained by the fact that the DRP vision is currently in the process of being implemented.

Figure 5.1 Setting the Scenario

The analysis and findings, based on our field expe-

rience in Dharavi and our parallel engagement with the

various actors through presentations and discussions,

provided an adequate platform to identify key areas for

conceptualising potential interventions. These key areas

include the need to increase community participation

at multiple levels of the transformation process, and to

recognise the divergent spatial and policy needs to ac-

commodate livelihoods alongside a wider range of flex-

ible and adaptive spatial typologies based on the diverse

needs and capacities of Dharavi’s citizens.

At the critical point of defining the conceptual ap-

proach of our proposals, based on our analysis, findings

and vision, a significant disparity became evident in the

choice of where these should be focused. As illustrated in

Figure 5.1, conceptually we identified two polarised ex-

tents of Dharavi’s contestation, the first represented by

the DRP vision. This vision is influenced by diverse forces

such as political interest, real estate markets and global

financial markets. Under the unification of the DRP all

these dominant forces act holistically towards imple-

menting transformation. On the opposite end of the

DRP is what we term Alternative Visions, the resistant

forces representing the multiplicity of interests includ-

ing NGOs, research institutions as well as the enormous

diversity of the citizens of Dharavi, including established

communities, landlords, local businessmen, residents,

migrant workers and religious groups, to name a few.

Of critical significance is the fragmented nature of these

visions in comparison to the unified front presented by

the DRP.

Finding a balance between the DRP vision and the

Alternative Visions was obviously critical but this was

primarily constrained by the fact that the DRP vision

is currently in the process of being implemented. We

found that many of our conceptual proposals required a


fundamental shift away from some directions being taken

by the DRP, while other proposals could be adapted into

the already initiated framework of transformation being

implemented by the DRP.

This process led us to conceive the need for two scenar-

ios:

Scenario 1: This Scenario is intended to be adapted into

the DRP within its current framework for transformation.

It heeds and adheres to all of the key principles instilled

in the DRP, such as the maintenance of the five developer

sectors, the global Floor Space Index of 4, the modern-

istic podium typology of spatial massing and the other

planning and design guidelines. It seeks to improve the

structures of citizen representation and participation

within the existing framework of the DRP and it infuses

findings from the field towards meeting spatially diverse

livelihood needs.

Scenario 2: This Scenario aims to present an alternative

scenario that is not completely limited by the exacting

stipulations of existing DRP policy framework. It address-

es what elements change and justifies such alterations,

and intends to find an entry point that incorporates the

requirements and aspirations of the citizens of Dharavi as

highlighted in our analysis and findings, whilst maintain-

ing a level of intention to act opportunistically to benefit

Mumbai as a whole.


06 ChapterTHE SCENARIOS

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

The primary argument behind our alternative vision challenges the singularity of the urban and architectural form proposed, whilst the secondary argument comes as a direct response to the policies of exclusion of the DRP. As we argue for policies to be informed by the reality of specific places, we propose a progressive approach to transformation that is directly linked with the context, and that prioritises the community before other stakeholders.


06 ChapterScenario 01

The Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Project

Towards Citizen Participation in the DRP

Spatial Transformation in the DRP: Beyond Provision, Towards Adaption & Enablement


The proposals presented as part of Scenario 1 have been developed for adaption and inclusion into the Dharavi Redevelopment Project’s (DRP) process and policy framework as it currently exists. It adheres to the current fundamental principles of five Developer Sectors, a FSI of four and Podium Spatial Typology and offers two main proposals for integration into the DRP. The first regards the inclusion of steps towards increased citizen participation in the DRP transformation process, while the second seeks to respond to our analysis for the need to diversify basic spatial provisions towards enabling long term flexibility and adaption of use based on an acknowledgement of the diverse needs and capacities of the residents of Dharavi.

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

of citizen groups, bodies or organisations with the state

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

inclusion in a process claimed a s participatory can vary

widely, ranging from their manipulation by dominant

forces to citizens creating and driving the transformative

process.

Our understanding of participation as a staircase, as

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

Ladder of Citizen Participation and the International

Association of Public Participation. The diagram illustrates

the lowest level of participation as manipulation, where

dominant powers distort citizens’ engagement in the

process (Slocum, 1995). The highest form of participation,

empowerment, enables a sense of self-reliance on skills

and abilities and is achieved when citizens themselves

are deeply and meaningfully engaged in elaborating

the transformative process. While ‘manipulation’ and

‘empowerment’ represent the ends of the spectrum, there

are numerous steps in between. Overall participation

should be transparent, with those involved being not only

Figure 6.1 Varying Degrees of Participation


informed, but included at some level in the elaboration

of the process.

Thus far the DRP process had a contested path towards

achieving a platform for appropriate citizen participation.

Initially the DRP adopted no form of citizen representation

in implementing its vision for transformation in Dharavi. It

showed no intent of altering this stance and was pushed

to do so after continuous pressure was placed on the state

and central government by several groups consisting of

local civil and business organisations, NGOs, academics

and activists who campaigned relentlessly for a rethinking

of the DRP process and the inclusion of citizen rights

and representation in the transformation process (Patel

& Arputham 2008). The outcome of such pressure has

been the appointment of the Expert Advisory Committee

(EAC) to the DRP, as officially recognised in January 2009.

The DRPs engagement with this committee, formed of a

diverse cross section of professionals, NGOs and academic

institutions such as KRVIA, represents the first major step

in achieving a degree of citizen participation in the DRP,

although it remains that significant scope still exists for

an improvement in broader-based citizen engagement.

Having been present at a point in the process where

the EAC has been presented with the DRPs intention of

implementing the modernistic ‘podium’ spatial typology

it became evident to us that the EAC still face substantial

challenges in trying to negotiate the direction for

transformation being carried by the DPR. There is a

poignant note on contestation of the transformation

process: While the EAC has made significant headway

in initiating its own capacity for negotiating the path of

the DRP, it now has to contend from within, the reality of

its disproportionate power share in the transformation

process.

In keeping with this Scenario’s intent of working

within the existing contextual parameters posed by

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

proposals for the ‘podium’ typology will be implemented.

What we are proposing are potentially achievable

methods of citizen participation in this already initiated

implementation process, that will look to take steps up

the conceptual model of citizen participation (fig 6.1)

In the current context of the DRP two possible steps

exist. The first step is obviously quite limited in terms

of the degree of participation that can realistically be

achieved due to the advanced status of the master

planning process. Many defining decisions to date have

been made with no citizen engagement. Thus in the

context of the current state of the DRP the first form of

participation that can be reached is one of ‘Informing’,

this takes the first step of creating transparency

of the transformation process and addressing the

apprehensions towards change within the community

based on their misunderstanding of the DRPs

intentions.

Key Constraint to Participation in the DRP: Who participates?

Under the current DRP framework, ‘eligible’

participants for a citizen engagement process are

technically only those who are registered on the

voting roll since 1 January, 2000. At present we are not

certain how many people are included in this register.

Those individuals technically ‘ineligible’ under the DRP,

including migrant workers, unregistered residents,

tenants or those who became residents of Dharavi

subsequent to the cut off date, are thus constricted in

Figure 6.2 exclusionary nature of the DRP

056


their role of the participatory rocesses proposed for the

DRP. While these ‘eligible’ and ‘ineligible’ statuses, as

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

strongly believe that those who are ineligible to receive

housing at no cost under the scheme should also be part

of the information session. Such individuals represent an

important segment of the population that will continue

to be part of Dharavi after the implementation of the

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

be included.

Step 1: Informing citizens about the DRPThe first step towards citizen participation in the DRP

must be information provision. Our interviews in the

field illustrated that residents either had a partial idea,

were misinformed or had no basic conception of the

DRP intentions. The most basic form of informing would

not necessitate personable consulting forums but be

through official posters and pamphlets can be made

available to keep the public abreast of what is occurring

in the DRP process. Once architectural typologies have

been in effect designed, drawings, models and even

mocked out tenements can be placed for public display

in locations in each sector. This would build awareness

and also balance expectation of what is to be provided

under the DRP.

If the DRP is willing to scale up the level of informing,

it could decide to engage in appropriately sized public

presentations and forums. A potential way to inform a

wide audience is by organising informal group meetings

for various citizen interest groups, a crucial step to

bring clarity and understanding as well as transparency

to the process. Finding an appropriate size for the

audience of such information sessions is important as

Figure 6.3 Means of Design Communication

the aim is to address a reasonable quantity of people in

an environment intimate enough to encourage people

to voice their concerns and openly ask questions. It is

also critical that the information is stated in a way that

is understandable to those attending the meetings, thus

use of pamphlets and architectural models can be useful

tools (Figure 6.3).

Citizens can be made aware of these meetings

through different media. In the context of Dharavi, orally

communicating the details of these meeting can provide

an inexpensive and effective way to create awareness. In

addition, informative posters outlining the topic, date and

location of meetings can also be useful to inform people

of these meetings. Pamphlets can be passed around to

share the basic information about the DRP, to stimulate

further discussion during meetings.

An important challenge to overcome when engaging

with the citizens of Dharavi pertains to the question

of accurate representation. Such elements must be

delicately determined as it is crucial to ensure that a

representative amount of interest groups are met.

Step 2: From Informing towards Consulting and Involving Dharavi’s citizen groups

The ability to move up the stairs of citizen participation

towards consulting involves engagement and

consultation with resident representative groups. Given

the constrains that exist within the DRP with recognition

of citizen rights and representation making this step up

is obviously challenging. We have however identified

one area where such a step would be plausible. Working

within this scenario’s stated remit of staying within the

DRP framework, we realise that it is unlikely that the DRP

would want to initiate the formation of citizen groups


Figure 6.5 proposed monolithic typology of the DRP


particularly concerned with the transformation process.

However from our fieldwork we came to understand that

a host of existing resident groups already exist in Dharavi.

This sector of civil society representation includes

existing social, cultural, religious and recreational groups.

Within the contexts of the framework of the existing DRP

we have indentified an area of scope for consultation

with existing civil society groups. Sections 7.3 and 8.0

in Appendix IV-A of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project

Draft Modification focuses on the inclusion of recreational

grounds, playgrounds, gardens and park as well as welfare

halls, Balwadis, society offices and religious buildings.

Consulting civil society on such areas within the current

DRP plan would help better mould these areas that the

DRP has already endeavoured to provide.

A forum for participatory engagement can thus be

initiated in each sector once the developers and existing

civil society groups have been identified for these

designated areas. The scope of participation would be

defined at the outset and focused on the open space

and communal areas identified in Sections 7.3 and 8.0

of the DRP. The actors for this engagement as identified

in Figure 6.4 would include representatives from the

developer including an architect, officials from the DRP.

The forums could be facilitated by NGO groups and the

community could be advised by academic groups such

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

Figure 6..4 multi-actor participation diagram

Conclusions While we acknowledge that given the current

state at which the DRP stands, the initiation of citizen

participation may be seen as a ‘retrofitted’ gesture aimed

at co-opting or appeasing various communities into

agreeing with the directions that have been primarily

decided for them. We however still believe that there is

still an overwhelmingly substantial benefit to be had by

both the DRP and the residents of Dharavi if methods

and practice of participation are introduced into the

DRP transformation process and implemented with

transparency and genuine intent and integrity.

‘I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers

of society but the people themselves; and if we

think them not enlightened enough to exercise

their control with a wholseome discretion, the

remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform

their discretion.’

Thomas Jefferson 1820

6.1.2 Spatial Transformation in the DRP: Beyond Provision, Towards Adaption & Enablement

When analysing policies addressing the Dharavi

Redevelopment Project (DRP), the term hutment

dweller is used to classify the status of many existing

citizens. Appendix IV-A of the Dharavi Redevelopment

Project Draft Modification states the rights of hutment

dwellers as:

‘1.1 Hutment-dwellers, in the slum or on the

pavement, eligible in accordance with the provisions

of development Control regulation 33(10) (A) shall

in exchange for their structure, be given free of cost

a residential tenement having a carpet area of 20.90

sq.mt. (225 sq.ft) including balcony, bath and water

closet, but excluding common areas. ‘

The conceptual basis of the policy defines the status

of eligible residents in the DRP by the typology of their

abode, where the DRP’s spatial change is predicated on

a transformation from ‘hutments’ to ‘tenements.’ This

spurred reflection on the question of what occurs when

a ‘Hutment Dweller’ becomes a ‘Tenement Dweller’?

When viewing the illustration of transformation

forseen by the DRP in the Mumbai Mirror (Figure 6.5) one

realises that a precedent for analysing transformation


Case Study 1: Mr HariharanMr Hariharan (Figure 6.6) represents a large range of

families interviewed in Rajiv Indira. He is very appreciative

of the positive impact that the transformation from

hutment to tenement has had on himself and his family’s

lives, the most significant benefit being the improvement

of sanitation and the provision of running water in the

home. The space he was provided in his tenement,

although limiting in some ways to his family’s long

term growth aspirations, is adequate for their current

requirements. As a vegetable vendor at the local market,

he does not rely on his residence for livelihood activities

and the provision of a 225 square foot tenement has

sufficiently served his needs and capacities.

through the future typology is already evident in

Dharavi, as its spatial fabric is scattered with many high

rise buildings, some older chawl buildings but also

many recent SRA constructed high-rise blocks. Hence

the unpacking of this transformation based on typology

can be informed significantly by our fieldwork analysis

in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira Housing Cooperative

Societies.

The following three case studies highlight key

findings.

Figure 6.6 livelihood profile in rajiv indira



Case Study 2: Mr KrishnanMr Krishnan (Figure 6.7) provides another case in

terms of aspirations and capacity. As a clerical worker

at the Mumbai Airport he has a stable and relatively

substantial income and in turn demonstrates a much

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

excess of Rs 3 Lakh in modifying his tenement. The high

priority he places in on investing in his home is evident

in the exceptionally high quality of the finishes he has

paid for such as the wall and floor tiling, the sliding glass

partitions to the loft and modern fittings in the bathroom

and kitchen. This investment is however limited to

modifying the decorative aspects of his home. In terms

of needs Mr Krishnan believes that the home satisfies his

current family size of four although apprehensions exist

regarding his family’s growth potential in this home. This

is a view shared with most other residents interviewed in

Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata.

Culturally families in these communities grow as

children marry, with the growth accommodated in

the same home. While such changes may arise in the

coming years, Mr Krishnan’s resources and capacity is

not taken into account and thus irrelevant in affording

additional space to grow. The inflexibility for growth

beyond the 225 square feet is a critical constraint here.

‘Hutments’ allow for more growth and adaptability than

the standard sized ‘tenement’.



Case Study 3 Mr SubiahMr Subiah (Figure 6.8) and his family presented a case

that explicitly highlights the need for acknowledging

the reality of large scale home-based activities in

residential tenements. The family of six all participate in

either the making or selling of their potato vada, with

their 225 square foot home acting as the storage space

and preparation centre. The family has no option but to

prioritise the accommodation of their livelihood before

the needs of their own personal space. As such, pockets

of potatoes and onions and space for grinding and

frying equipment take up the majority of the space in

this family’s home.

They have also been unfortunate in being allocated a

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

floors of the building do not have the 14 foot ceilings

and thus loft spaces provided on the floors below. This

stemmed from a late development in the brief of the

project that required the addition of two floors to the

building. As such a lift, normally to be included in building

of this height, was not provided. The Subiah family hence

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

carry large quantities of produce up five storeys of stairs.

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

roadside hutment as they were able carry the produce to

their home themselves.

This capacity to pay in on average in access of Rs. 600

per month for deliveries illustrates that the family has the

ability to utilise the same amount of money per month to

pay perhaps a return on a loan for additional floor space

that would have served their requirements in the long-

term.


Deductions Based on Case StudiesThe fieldwork analysis of Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata

strengthened our apprehensions regarding the provision

of a single sized typology of residential tenement t hat

negated the reality of diverse needs and capacities

present amongst the citizens of Dharavi. The diversity

within Dharavi exists as a multiplicity of not just culture

and society but also needs, resources and capacities.

The DRP is not reflectively informed nor seemingly

acknowledging the diversity present at multiple levels in

Dharavi’s citizens.

Designing for Enablement: Recognising Diversity and Providing for Flexibility and Adaptation

In response to our findings on the diverse needs and

capacities that exist amongst the ‘Hutment Dwellers’

that are to be rehoused in the DRP into tenements, we

propose a range of basic spatial options that can be

adapted to cater to families’ their divergent aspirations,

capacities and needs.

On average families numbering between five to six

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

Indira the use of loft space on the lower floors provides

families with some level of flexibility to adapt their

homes to their needs. To the average family it afforded

them the value of privacy between sleeping spaces

amongst adults and children: the obvious need for this

spatial adaptability and flexibility to address diversity

and multiplicity of use is unaddressed in the current DRP.

Indeed, further to this is the DRP decision to not allow

14 foot high loft typologies in future buildings causes a

critical constraint for the design of units to provide any

form of flexibility.

While the DRP intention of increasing unit sizes to

269 square feet internally and providing a balcony of 30

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

will still never adhere to the diverse long terms spatial

needs of the majority of affected families.

Options for growthThe DRP induced constraint for individual units to have

ceilings not higher than 8 feet means that this scenario

investigates only lateral growth options (Figure 6.9). The

premise of the proposal is to provide the provisional 300

square foot residential unit as the standard basic unit

to all eligible residents, but alongside this option offer

the potential to purchase additional floor space to the

provided unit.

Costs and FeasibilityThe proposal tries to balance the diverse needs and

capacities of communities with maintaining structural

and commercial feasibility. This is done by allowing

only two additional options each with a further 100

square feet (Figure 6.10). The space provided within

the unit will remain bare and primarily the same as the

standard units, thus leaving the onus of adapting the

internal spaces to the individual owners to achieve at

their own pace. Hence the additional construction

costs are limited to the extended size of the floor slab,

the addition of two windows and a minimal amount

of additional bricks for the longer wall. This additional

construction cost, because of its basic nature, should be

affordable to residents.

In a conversation with a senior DRP official, such

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

if people paid for the building that cost it would not

be need to be recouped by the developer, hence the

amount of FSI granted to offset building costs would be

somewhat curtailed. He also stated that the additional

floor space could be provided at a subsidised rate of Rs.

300 per square foot. For the purposes of our proposal

we have increased this figure to Rs. 400 per. This equates

to a cost of Rs. 40 000 and Rs. 80 000 for 100 square feet

and 200 square feet respectively.

Figure 6.9 possiblity for expansion under the DRP


Figure 6.10 options to purchase additional space

Figure 6.11 enabling spatial proposals


Design The generic design diagrams presented in Figure

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

They are not proposed to remain the same but attempt

to illustrate the principle of growth potential from the

additional floor space. The impact of having different

sized units will affect the overall design of the buildings,

but this is seen as well within the potential of architects

to derive buildings that accommodate this larger unit

typology using modular design principles to maintain

the structural feasibility.

Flexibility and EnablementThe hypothesis of staircase to participation presented

at the outset for this scenario illustrates the fundamental

constraints to participation under the current DRP plan.

By maintaining the provision of the single type of type

of tenement, the most that can be accomplished is

informing residents of what their allocated residence

would resemble.

Adopting the proposal to option in additional floor

space provides the potential to take significant steps up

the ladder. By allowing the process to recognise diverse

capacities and needs, the DRP process would be moving

towards the threshold of ‘consult’ and ‘involve’. In the

longer term, this could evolve towards ‘empower’ based

on people being enabled to adapt their spaces to their

needs and invest capital into their homes.

The recognition of the diverse capacity of people

within Dharavi makes this proposal viable. Based on the

case studies from Rajiv Indira that we have identified we

can assume that for instance a person such as Mr Krishnan

who invested 3 Lakhs on decorative modifications to his

home would have opted to take the extra 200 square feet

option and had sufficient room to adapt the space for his

future extended family. Or in the case of Mr Subia the

Rs600 per month that now being spent on delivery could

have been directed to towards paying for some much

needed additional space to accommodate his family’s

home based activity and living requirements.

It must be recognised that the process of trans-

formation in the DPR does not stop after the provision of

standardised tenements to hutment dwellers. It is merely

an intermediary phase that precedes adaptation to the

habitual environment that is provided. The opportunity

exists within the DRP to allow for this adaptation phase

to be enabling in the long term to the citizens of Dharavi.

To do so requires acknowledging the diversity that exists

culturally, socially and economically amongst residents

and allowing them the room for adaptation and growth.

Provision without flexibility removes the potential for

enablement and reduces long-term sustainability.


06 ChapterScenario 02

The BUDD Charette: Towards an Alternative Vision

Revisiting the Vision

The Concept

Redevelopment Strategies

Process of Citizen Involvement

Catalogue


The BUDD Charrette has been developed as a

response to the Dharavi Redevelopment Project

(DRP). Its objective is to present an alternative

scenario based on the policy framework in

place, without being unconditionally limited

by it. Instead of developing a plan that stands

completely outside the embedded framework,

the proposal is set halfway between theoretical

notions that support grassroots transformation

and the very real pressure coming from the city

level. It is intended as a response in a process

of negotiation.

Presentation

For this purpose, the ethos conceptualised in this

scenario comes as an answer to the contested elements

of the DRP. The primary argument behind our alternative

vision challenges the singularity of the urban and

architectural form proposed, whilst the secondary

argument comes as a direct response to the policies of

exclusion of the DRP. Our emergent vision of Dharavi

is one that recognises the multidimensionality of the

modes of tenure in Dharavi.

Our understanding of ‘Urban transformation’ as the

evolution and production of space in direct response to

the converging forces of external actors and the internal

needs of the people and their diverse livelihoods, stands

as the central element of our proposal.

This definition of a propitious transformative process

disputes the DRP’s basis and priorities. We perceive the

multiple needs of the community as paramount, thus

explaining why our programme aims to incorporate the

city needs within Dharavi such as the creation of new

residential stock, the extension of the BKC as a growing

financial centre, new commercial development, etc.

instead of trying to force the needs of Dharavi into a

plan which is clearly detached from the current setting.

Although this strategy seems to distance itself from

the policy framework supporting the current plans for

Dharavi’s redevelopment, is actually in line with the

National Housing Policy

1988), which recognizes that the ‘development of slums

has to be through the participation of people and their

local leaders’ (Sharma & Sita, 2000, p. 3734).

Limitations of the ProposalWhilst this alternative scenario defends the need for

a pluralistic approach to design, it does not tackle the

issues of the delivery system. Although the discourse

supporting a need of plural methods of provision

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

we believe this concept to be too detached from the

framework and policies in place to be included in a

realistic alternative vision.

As an urban development proposal, the vision

presented in this section does not represent an end

result, but rather the key elements of a process. The

visual support found in this section thus aims to provide

explanations to the concepts put forward, and is by no

means illustrative of definitive urban and architectural

forms. We are thereby presenting an urban planning

intervention in an alterative way (Patel, 1997: 822) and

in doing so, departing from the conventional master

plan format.

6.2.1 Revisiting the VisionAs part of our initial vision of Dharavi as a place with

a unique, multiple and dynamic character, where global

demands and local aspirations can be merged together

and the production of new urban forms are consciously

integrated within flexible contexts, the vision of BUDD

Charrette proposal can be divided into five challenging

orientations and objectives:

I. Bettering the system of provision to meet basic needs in Dharavi, to mitigate the problematic living conditions as experienced by the most vulnerable sectors of the community.

II. Assuring the prosperity of an environment that recognises the livelihoods of the citizens of Dharavi, to allow the urban form to be flexible to diverse and changing needs by adapting to them through time.

III. Equipping Dharavi with a political framework which supports the creation of a


physical environment highlighting the capacity, diversity and resilience of the community in place, in order to assure the progression of its character.

IV. Integrating elements of the formal city into Dharavi so as to dilute the differences between the ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ city to ultimately eliminate the stigma associated with Dharavi.

V. Integrating development areas that cater to the needs of the middle-class and private market, so as to reconcile the needs ofMumbai and those of Dharavi while making the cross-subsidisation of the redevelopment projects possible.

6.2.2 The ConceptIn order to realise our objectives as stated in our

revisited vision, we have developed a concept that

recognises the need for pluralism and inclusion. The

wide range of solutions produced is reflective of our

067

contrasting and complimentary conceptual strategies.

The concept supports our definition of transformation

while trying to manoeuvre within the restrictive

framework of the DRP.

The map found in Figure 6.12, inspired by our

vision of Dharavi, aims to conceptualise our proposed

interventions:

• Opening Dharavi to Mumbai, as illustrated by the

burgundy arrows

• Blending in the differences between the ‘formal’ and

‘informal’ city, as illustrated by the smaller green and

yellow arrows

• Creating high-density zones at strategic

points in Dharavi (near the three train stations located

around Dharavi, and near the Bandra Kurla Complex),

where high-rise structures intended for the private sector

will be located

• Conservation of the vernacular character of the historical/

central zone of Dharavi by proposing interventions

inspired by existing urban forms

• Introducing a transitional zone between Dharavi’s

historic centre and the proposed high density zone

to harmonise the cityscape while allowing for vertical

redevelopment schemes to be strategically located.

Figure 6.12 conceptual proposals map


To achieve this, the concept presented in this section

diverges from the DRP in 4 important ways:

I. Abandonment of 5 sector division:

This departure from the DRP attempts to

successfully translate the unique social, cultural,

economic and spatial character of each nagar

into the proposal, building on existing resources.

It allows for development that recognises Dharavi

as one place instead of an amalgamation of 5

sub-zones. It also allows for a development that

is incremental and informed by its own process as

opposed to the proposed model which has been

created to allow for the simultaneous development

of five zones by as many actors, all in isolation from

one another.

II. Abandonment of the FSI regulatory tool:

The FSI regulatory tool in place, which prescribes

a global floor space index of 4.0 for the whole

of Dharavi, presents unnecessary constraints

and backs up unsupportable densities. It is not

reflective of the needs or reality of Dharavi, but

rather of the interests of the private sector.

III. Recognition of the migrants living and working

in Dharavi:

This addition to the plan comes as a response to

our recognition of the role of migrants in Dharavi’s

complex and diverse lexis. It plans for the needs of

the most vulnerable portion of the population and

in this sense it also pertains to the goal behind the

SRA to eliminate slums in Mumbai.

IV. Redefinition of the role of the community in the

planning and redevelopment:

This second addition to the current plan is proposed

in order to assure that the development of Dharavi

is representative of the true needs and aspirations

of the community. It ensures the sustainability of

what is being provided while fostering feelings of

ownership by the community in regards to both

the product and the process.

6.2.3 Redevelopment StrategiesAs recognition of the multidimensional character of

the needs of the citizens of Dharavi, our redevelopment

strategies propose a wide range of interventions. The

concept proposes options that reflect the needs of

the current citizens of Dharavi, the migrants and those

of Mumbai as a whole, instead of a ‘one size fits all’

approach.

Based on the analysis of multiple findings gathered

in the field, our program recognises four broader

architectural typologies and associates each of them with

a number of morphological typologies currently existing

in Dharavi. The idea is first to link each architectural type

to a specific function, such as home-based economies,

manufacturing activities, residential units, and so forth,

and second, to establish coupling between architectural

forms and urban layouts (morphological typologies).

These relationships between urban and building

forms are much less diametrical as we acknowledge

that architectural forms should be associated with as

many types of urban tissues as possible (Figure 6.13). We

judge this to be especially important for the residential

units as we recognise the importance of exterior spaces

and their different uses among different communities.

The variant architectural types are associated with a

range of morphological tissues, allowing an array of

spatial configurations.

Policy MatrixIn order to recognise and understand the complex

policy environment created by the DRP, we have

designed a policy matrix in which each of our four

proposals are placed, highlighting the new condition of

policy needed making evident our position in contrast

to the current policy sphere

6.2.4 Process of Citizen InvolvementBefore the elaboration of a detailed plan for the

redevelopment of Dharavi, it is essential to develop

options that address the needs of the citizens therein.

These options should come as a result of direct field

observations, surveys and exchanges, and the direct

involvement of the community (Figure 6.14). The

question of participation introduces complexities as it

ventures into integrating grassroots participation in a

framework that operates from the top-down. The scale

of the project brings about a new level of complexity.

The scheme we have developed to implicate citizens

in the process has required concessions in order to be

achievable. It is separated into three different phases,

each of them associated with a different time frame and

level of citizen involvement:


Figure 6.13 development strategy schema

The main morphological typologies found in Dharavi will be conserved in the central zone in order to minimise the disruption of the milieu. Although changes of the urban form will occur, our intention is to allow the community to continue living in a place where the urban tissue and layout of open spaces reflects the needs as well or better than it currently does.

069

Figure 6.14 process of community involvement


I. First Stage:The first stage starts with research and analysis by

a professional team (NGO, development practitioners;

internal or external to the community). These findings

will then inform the design and layout options which

architects and planners will elaborate and develop. The

design and creation of a wide range of options will be

done in collaboration with citizen group representatives.

These representatives will be large enough in number

to ensure an accurate and symbolic representation of

a variety of communities. The interactions at this phase

are circular and continuous. The citizen representatives

and the designers will work as a team to elaborate

options, before presenting them to other citizens and

communities.

II. Second Stage:In the second stage, citizens will be given options

to choose from in order to assure that he/she is being

provided with an alternative that fits his/her needs. Firstly,

citizens will decide which architectural typology fits his/

her needs best. Secondly, each person will be given

layout options so that the interior spaces are adapted to

the requirements of the future owner/renter. Informative

posters will be displayed around Dharavi, which will

illustrate in 2D (plan) and 3D illustrations (renderings) the

possible options for each type, as shown in Figure 6.15.

In addition, full-scale model units (proto-types) will be

built and opened to the public to visit. Each family will

then be given the opportunity to choose a unit layout.

In this stage, the unit recipients will also make explicit

their preference in term of urban layout (morphological

typology).

III. Third Stage:In the last stage of this process of citizen involvement,

the preferences of the people will be compiled. With this

information, the designers (architects + planners) will

develop a plan for Dharavi that accommodates the needs

and choices of citizens. The proportion of each typology

and layout to be built will be directly informed by the

previous stage.

First stage

Second stage

Third stage


Figure 6.16 urban density map

The zones illustrated on this map are conceptual, with an aim to illustrate the idea of the creation of zones that will be used for different architectural types. The size and limits of these zones should vary depending on the needs and choices of the community (see Second stage of the ‘Process of Community Involvement’ section). The intention of this map is to illustrate where the private development (high-rise) should be located, while showing how the cityscape will be harmonized between the high-rise and low-rise zones through the use of mid-rise units.

071

Figure 6.15 layout options poster


Figure 6.17 current situation

Figure 6.18 proposed space-use arrangement

Figure 6.19 Place policy matrix

6.2.5 CatalogueAs our proposal recognises the need for forms that

vary according to functions, we have developed four

typologies for our conceptual catalogue as illustrated in

(Figure 6.16)

A. Home-Based UnitsDescription

This is a low-density typology, with buildings ranging

from G+3 to G+5. They are located in inner areas of

Dharavi in order to preserve the existing streetscape.

The typology focuses on households with home-based

businesses, and is concentrated in the southern area of

Chambda Bazaar.

Current Situation

The proposal keeps the ground floor as retail use. It

can be used by individual owners for selling products, or

it can be rented out to other tenants (Figure 6.17). The

shop fronts along the street are intended to preserve the

street view of Chambda Bazaar, while the first floor holds

the living space – a 300 square foot unit. This typology is

designed to sustain the current livelihoods of residents

with home-based activities.

From the analysis, some of the activities require larger

spaces with higher headroom, thus units with higher

headroom are proposed. This high ceiling unit enables

multiplicity, allowing citizens with diverse aspirations

to be accommodated. The larger headroom also allow

mezzanine floor to be built.

Concept

The fundamental concept of this typology is to

separate the working space from the living space (Figure

6.18). However, instead of dividing the working space

and living space into two units, a vertical separation is

proposed to keep the two spaces within one unit.

Currently, many people live within a crowded house

along with their products and materials. The same space

can be used for many purposes. This means that when

some family members are working, others cannot sleep

or be involved in other family activities. The mezzanine

floor is proposed to create a vertical separation while

providing privacy to some of the family members. The

household can use the mezzanine as working space with

the first floor as living space or vice versa.


Policy

This adjusts the government’s policy as demonstrated

in the DRP (Figure 6.19). It abandons the podium and

high-rise typology. The convergence of livelihood

space and living space is recognised. Unlike the DRP,

productive activities will not occur under a podium-level.

The proposed typology maintains the 14 foot headroom

proposed in the DRP for commercial units. The retail

spaces are directly on the ground floor instead of raised

on the podium level, and the layout is designed in a

collaborative manner with community representatives

and the leaders of some of the home based industries.

Households can then choose their desired layout from

several options.

B. Work-Based Units

Description

This typology varies from G+3 to G+4 in height and

is designed for small, medium and large manufacturing

industries in Dharavi and their workers. The concept

behind this typology is to recognise the needs of

these thriving industries, which are central to Dharavi’s

functioning. It proposes the grouping of small industries

by including the retail, production and living aspect of

these industries in the spatial design. These units will be

located in the lowest density zone of Dharavi. Inspired

by the existing manufacturing clusters in Dharavi, these

work-based clusters will most often be organised around

open spaces.

Current Situation

Dharavi’s economy is fuelled by small and medium

industries, which often process goods from raw

materials to the final product. Often owned by local

residents, these industries mainly employ migrants

who come to Mumbai for work to earn money then

sent back to their villages. More often then not, these

migrants readapt the workspace at night to use as a

living/sleeping space. They often work, sleep and eat

in the same interior space, as illustrated in Figure 6.20

These industries are often grouped by phases of the

commercial process (production, resale, retail, etc.), but

not by types of goods sold/produced. Therefore this

has additional transportation needs (and costs) since

the materials are transported between clusters as they

progress from raw materials to end products ready to

Figure 6.20 migrant’s use of space

productionraw material

sale

Figure 6.21 production Networks

Figure 6.22 separation of spatial use


073


be sold. Although this cost is rather minimal and the

distances travelled are small, it adds up to significant

sums in this setting of financial constraints. What is more,

these numerous deliveries add pressure and congestion

to already strained transportation infrastructure.

Concept

The concept is to spatially group sub-industries and

separate spatial uses at the scale of the units. At the scale

of Dharavi, we are proposing the creation of clusters

where all phases of production are integrated. This would

minimise the costs of the final goods, while allowing these

small industries to gain recognition by partnering with

the other members of the same industry (Figure 6.21).

At the scale of the unit itself, our concept suggests a

vertical segregation of function within each work-based

cluster. The ground floor will be reserved for direct resale

to customers and retailers, while the first floor will be

used to process raw materials. The second floor will be

used for the processing of raw material into the finished

product. This has been located on the second floor as

we expect the processed material to be easier to move

vertically than the raw material.

Lastly, we are proposing separate accommodation

on the top most floors of these work-based units (Figure

6.22). This separation is crucial for the betterment of the

livelihoods of the migrant population of Dharavi working

in the manufacturing sector. This residential section

should take the shape of accommodations, and has been

inspired by college residences. They will be around 100

square feet each. Common areas (kitchen, living area,

and toilet) will be located on each floor.

Policy

At a policy level, this proposal departs from the DRP at

one additional level; it does not comply with the podium

typology (Figure 6.23). This distance in comparison to

the DRP is essential in maintaining the character of the

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

integrates rental stock to the plan in order to house the

migrant workers. This is essential for the amelioration

of poor living conditions, and to assure that new slums

are not created outside the limits of the redevelopment

area.

C. High-Rise (Rehabilitation)

Description

This typology varies from G+5 to G+7 in height and

aims to house rehabilitated families. These mid-rise

buildings will be located near the edges of Dharavi,

serving as a buffer zone between the high rise buildings

near train stations and the low rise units in the centre of

Dharavi.

Current Situation

This typology has emerged for two major purposes,

the first of which is to improve the living conditions

of the current inhabitants. The living conditions are

not desirable at the moment, as hutment dwellers

live in overcrowded houses with inadequate basic

infrastructure, both physical and social. Piped water is

not guaranteed and the sewer capacity is not enough to

extract rainwater from the street during the monsoon

period. By centralising the residential area, infrastructure

can be provided in a more systematic fashion. A central

pump room in each building will provide clean water

to each unit at sufficient pressure to the highest floor.

Sewers from each unit will collect the wastewater and

discharge it to the district sewer system of Dharavi.

The second purpose of this typology is to free up the

space for private residential development. Right now,

squatters are distributed throughout all of Dharavi, with

most of them living in two storey houses. By stacking

these houses in a vertical manner, the footprint of the

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

the same footprint area can allow more floor space and

thus cater to more households. The saved space can be

utilised for high-rise private housing, discussed in the

following section, which will cross-subsidise the cost of

the development.

Concept

The units are designed to preserve and nurture

economic and social networks. This typology is also

designed to maximise the communal space on each

floor, allowing women and children to gather easily

outside their units. The space can be a common corridor

or atrium with a large opening to allow natural lighting

and ventilation. People can retain the activities carried

out in front of their hutments, such as drying food or

clothes.

074


Each household is provided with a unit of 300 square

feet, most of which is living area (Figure 6.25). From

our analysis, a large number of households have been

able to adapt the space and allow small-scale home-

based production, such as jewellery making and

flower selling, inside their homes. This type of house is

therefore suitable for families not requiring large spaces

specifically for livelihood use.

Policy

In terms of policy, this rehabilitation typology is in line

with the DRP. The only variation is the abandonment of

the above ground podium (Figure 6.26). The residential

units are built directly on the ground floor instead of

the raised podium level. Like the other typologies, the

layout will be designed by the architect and KRVIA with

a feedback loop from community representatives. After

the scheme design of the floor plan, each household

will be able to choose from a number of layout options.

D. High-Rise (Private Sector)

Description

Understanding the need for cross-subsidised

development, we believe that the presence of high-rise

buildings in Dharavi is a symbiotic alternative that serves

the private market as well as the citizens of Dharavi.

Such a typology is quite disruptive to the organic way

in which Dharavi has been developed, with heights of

G+15 to G+30 and residential units ranging from 500 -

700 square Feet. Therefore, it is to be implemented only

on the periphery of Dharavi. These peripheral zones have

been identified based on their unique advantages, such

as their proximity to railway stations and main roads.

This will help to integrate part of Dharavi to the greater

urban fabric while protecting and providing continuity

to the activities currently inherent in its centre.

Current Situation

An idea has emerged to attract a new flow of high

income groups currently living and working in different

sectors of the city with the new offices and commercial

activities to be supplied. Dharavi would help to release

pressure in the busy southern area of Mumbai while

including itself in the wider urban fabric through the

facilitation of a “growth centre” that the city demands

(Figure 6.27).

Figure 6.24 current situation

Figure 6.25 proposed arrangement


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

of these structures will thwart the current pressures of

large-scale development applied by the government,

while improving the living conditions of residents and

resolving spatial and density issues in Mumbai.

Policy

The ground level podium proposed in the DRP as the

new public surface for the whole area of Dharavi is wholly

rejected in this vision (Figure 6.29). Alternatively, we

suggest the integration of more human scale podiums

that enrich the spaces at ground level of particular

individual buildings. In this way the new vertical clusters

will offer different alternatives that will help to reinforce

the character of each place.

High Rise (Rehabilitation)

Work-base units

Home-base economies

In line with DRP

Adjustment from DRP

Addition to DRP

Retraction from DRP

Figure 6.27 current situation (Bandra-Kurla complex)



076



077

REFERENCES

Arnstein Sherry, 1969. A ladder of participation. Journal of the American Association. Vol 35, nº4.

Desai Vandana, 1995. Community participation and slum housing: A case study of Bombay. Sage Publications, London.

Keivani R. & Werna E., 2001. Models of housing provision in developing countries. Progress in planning 55, pp.65-118.

Patel Shirish, 1997. Urban Planning by Objectives. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 16 (Apr. 19-25), pp. 822-826. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4405308]

Sharma R.N. & Sita K., 2000. Cities, Slums and Government. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 42 (Oct. 14-20), pp. 3733-3735. Economic and Political Weekly. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4409859]

Rocheleau D., Slocum R., 1995. Participation in context: key questions. In Power process and participation: tools for change. ITDG, London, pp.17-30.

6.2.6 ConclusionThe conceptual catalogue we have created is reflective

of our concept and illustrative of our criticism of the

current DRP. Although we recognise the need to

accommodate the needs of Mumbai in Dharavi, we

challenge the singular form proposed by the DRP and

propose densities that are more adapted to the needs

of the community in place. As we argue for policies to

be informed by the reality of specific places, we propose

a progressive approach to transformation that is

directly linked with the context, and that prioritises the

community before other stakeholders.

07 ChapterREFLECTIVE PRACTICE

Critical PerceptionsBalancing the Real and Academic

Beyond Mumbai - Conceptualising Place and its Future

As the DRP takes a lead role in the transformation of Dharavi, are the correct priorities being set in place regarding the diversity of citizens and livelihoods? Do the policy processes that regulate social transition and physical manifestation allow for flexibility and adaptation over time? Does the ‘world class city’ vision align with historical trends, current realities, and future predictions?


As illustrated in the analysis and scenarios, the situation in Mumbai, and specifically Dharavi, is rife with conflicting voices, visions and concerns of an indeterminate future. Operating within this contested scene, under the premise of offering practical and alternative proposals for redevelopment, provided great challenges not only in regards to our daily production, but also our own perceptions of what it means to engage in such environments as a practitioner, two concepts that will be discussed herein, followed by a conceptualisation of present and future Mumbai. Addressing these challenges amidst exposed realities and notions of a context existing in a constant state of flux yielded a continuous reassessment of methodologies and aproach. Our adaptability in response to reality checks and surprises thus emerged as an essential element throughout the process.

7.1 Critical Perceptions Recognising that our introduction and research into

the case of Dharavi was initiated remotely in London, heavily based on literature reviews, lectures and media presentations, the idea of questioning critical perceptions carries a two-fold nature. First, the stereotypical images and definitions used to represent ‘slums’ are, at best, criminally one-sided, making it very difficult to actually comprehend the essence of an area under question without setting foot on the ground. While the expected squalor, sub-standard infrastructure conditions and overcrowding exists, also revealed is a lively, adaptive, resilient community driven by fruitful assets of human and economic capital. Thus our conceptual understanding of ‘slum’ is/was called into evolving question.

Equally fundamental in terms of general perception lay the character and relationship dynamics between key actors. In this case, pre-trip actor mapping was carried out to provide a basis for our understanding of the context. While the initial links and ideals of the individual actors remained relatively consistent, the revelations uncovered during our meetings in terms of divergent visions, motivations and concerns had a significant effect on our daily reflections and understandings. The influence that an individual can have on the institution or organisation they represent, and thus on the subsequent unfolding of a situation, an important variable to be acknowledged. For example, Gautam Chatterjee’s reign at the helm of MHADA has seen the appointment of an Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP, illustrating some degree of desire for inclusive representation in discussing

SPARC, our facilitator and liaison, was paramount in connecting us with Mr. Chatterjee as well as other key actors, thus becoming in many ways a lens through which the situation manifested itself. A slightly conflictive element lies in the fact that SPARC has a significant presence within this context, requiring that their existence receive the same critical attention given to another. What became important for our work was the balancing of our own evolving perceptions as outsiders and temporary ‘partners’ alongside their experienced position - working through known compromises and levels of bureaucratic rigidity in order to achieve a holistic view.

A major element in reaching the latter resides in recognising the various degrees by which people and organisations measure success. Resulting from our case study research of the in-situ redevelopment projects we acknowledge our own critical gauge of the level of their success. Did they appropriately address the needs and desires of individuals as transition took place? This opinion, much like our independent perceptions, contrasts with that of SPARC, coming to light during our conversations with Sheela Patel, whose stated self-designated capacities attempted to offer explanations in regard to decisions, outcomes, and future plans. Simultaneously, we realised the contrasting measure of success as gauged by MHADA and MCGM. Coming to terms with these differing opinions in our own minds, we formed a critical view towards a need to redefine means of success in relation to an actor’s future capacity.

7.2 Balancing the Real and Academic Our presence in Mumbai was one of evolving

duality. There we found ourselves thrust into what we have referred to as a conflictive environment, which is shockingly real and heavily debated the world over, but also magnified on the ground within Dharavi. Like two sides of a coin we were both an academic institution bringing with it strong concepts of theoretical study, and in an instance, professionals with expected capacity to envision change. The exposure to realities of sacrificial negotiation compounded as we attempted to deliver a ‘real’, practical solution within a determined policy and typological framework. As seen in Scenario 1, we conceded to the guidelines of the DRP, while asserting critical responsive alternatives in regards to the transformation of social well-being and livelihoods. Relating directly to our analysis, we questioned the scenario largely based on a planning driven initiative for the whole of Dharavi. Working with certain established policy provisions, this scenario departed dramatically from the current DRP, especially in terms of physical typology and the five sector parcel zoning. It also critically addressed policy guidelines and strategic processes of participation under the same vision as Scenario 1. The basis for working through this second

080


scenario stemmed directly from the theoretical concepts and methodology related to prior projects undertaken throughout the BUDD course, working within a greater room for manoeuvre and the edge of academic freedom.

The concept of duality as witnessed in the nature of our existence in Mumbai, and represented appropriately in our complementing scenarios, calls to mind the question of the practitioner’s role. Practitioners bring with them a knowledge capacity formed, in our case, by academic training and situational experience. Fundamental to the practitioner’s cause is their ability to apply restraint under the notion that each situation is unique and requires a level of initial debriefing. Finding ourselves within a new, complex environment, full of challenge and cultural exchange, sparked reality checks and questioning of value systems. It was imperative for us to stay grounded and observe the situation and the ‘checks and balances’ therein - what is there, what is not there. In order to achieve the goals we set for ourselves, much attention was given to deciphering the feedback mechanisms in place and how we could position ourselves within them. Fortunately, in many cases, our presence was respectfully regarded and rarely called into critical question. It was important for us to then use this allowance and platform to understand our role in offering a truly valuable contribution that enriches lives and on a larger scale and illustrates alternative solutions for the transformation of Dharavi.

7.3 Beyond Mumbai - Conceptualizing Place and its Future

The previous arguments regarding professional field experience, the academic realm and how that relates to the role of practitioner, illustrate a needed balance in order to maintain a high standard of reflection and implementation. For if one dismisses theoretical methodology in favour of mere respect for the uniqueness of place, a valuable opportunity may be missed and standards may be affected. It is possible the same idea could then be applied when conceptualising a situation or place.

As it stands now, Mumbai and Dharavi have livedunder a microscope of analysis and study since the early 1990s. The multitude of institutions, organisations and professionals offering services and producing alternative visions amplifies daily. In fact, our visit marks the fourth consecutive year the Development Planning Unit has conducted research in the city. It can easily be said that Dharavi is in itself becoming a concept resource model, representing contested urbanism and the general subject of slum upgrading and redevelopment. Just as Los Angeles and Las Vegas have become urban ideologies, through Mike Davis’s City of Quartz and Venturi’s Learning from Las Vegas, so too has Mumbai (Dharavi) become an international breeding ground for

debate and research. This argument also manifests in the recent release of the film Slumdog Millionaire, where a world audience now has a hyper image mechanism and conversation piece to attach with the concept of slum and the city of Mumbai. Despite Dharavi’s fertility in containing the complexities and contradictions that appeal to professionals and academics alike, we must not forget that it is a living, breathing place without the fantastic nature and allure of Los Angeles or the stylized adult playground of Las Vegas. The truth of Dharavi lies in its extreme situation of conflict. Its appeal as a resource parallels the struggles of daily survival, the necessity for attention and solutions that can humanise conditions that are anything but. This report clearly illustrates there is much more to Dharavi than its poverty stricken conditions, as it flourishes with economic richness, communal and family oriented networks and traditions, which breathe and sustain a diversity of life into the area. In this case is Dharavi underrepresented? Do those who have spent their time and energy in using the area as a resource really understand the totality of place or have they picked upon the tragic complexities in order to justify a grandiose urban vision? In response to this, again we assert that an appropriate balance needs to be achieved in order to inform both experience and subsequent proposals that will lead to inclusive transformative outcomes for individuals and the city as a whole. The questions we ask here, in light of the declared desire for Mumbai to reach ‘world class city’ status, hark back to our stated conceptual framework criteria and vision. As the DRP takes a lead role in the transformation of Dharavi, are the correct priorities being set in place regarding the diversity of its citizens and livelihoods? Do the policy processes that regulate social transition and physical manifestation allow for flexibility and adaptation over time? Does the ‘world class city’ vision align with historical trends, current realities, and future predictions? At present there seems to be great disjunction between grand expectations and acknowledged reality. The two scenarios we have proposed strive to bridge these stated expectations with the realities of daily social and economic activity. By addressing policy implications alongside basic necessities for sustaining and transforming community and livelihoods within a strategically planned urban landscape, we foretell the establishing of Dharavi as a pulsating heart of Mumbai, rather than an area branded with informality and poverty, whose future is determined in regards to land value and market trends alone. The character of Dharavi, as we have illustrated, is much more powerful than that.

REFERENCES

Davis Mike, 2006. City of quartz: excavating the future in Los Angeles. Verso Books.Venturi et al. 1977. Learning from Las Vegas: the forgotten symbolism of

architectural form. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

081

BHARAT JANATA

RAJIV INDIRA

BHARAT JANATA

RAJIV INDIRA

Appendixinterview templates

Rajiv indira & Bharat janata

Chambda bazaarLocating Home-based activities

Manufacturing activitiesRetail activities

How long have you lived in Dharavi? (Before moving to new tenement)What is the size of the family living together in this household?Tell us about your typical day.Where did you live originally in Dharavi? How long did you live in transit camp? What was it like living in transit camp?Have you kept relationship with previous neighbours after rehabilitation? And with the broader community of Dharavi? What do you like most about living here? What do you like the least?What do you do now? Who supports the household? Has the move affected this?

How did you become aware of the Bharat Janata/Rajiv Indira rehabilitation process?Were you involved in the design process of the units? How? (Establish level of participation)

How has the new home met your needs compared to your last home? (Meeting expectations)Do you have more or less space than you originally had? Have you been able to adapt the space to meet your needs? Did you rent a room where you lived before?How did you decide where you live, which floor-location? (Understand power dynamics and diversity-space relationship)Do you make use of the communal spaces? Are they adequate for your communal needs?Where do the children go to school? Where do they play after school?How do you feel living in a high-rise building? How do you move into Dharavi and outside? Where do/es the earner/s in the home work? How did the move affect this? (Unpack this spatially – where raw materials are from)Have you heard about redevelopment plans for Dharavi? If yes, what do you think about the plan? If no, what do you think should change in Dharavi?Thank you for your time. Do you have some questions for us?

Interview

Questionnaires

Rajiv Indira & Bharat Janata

HARIHARANApproximate age: 35-40 years old

Household size: 5 (Hariharan, wife and three kids)

Years in Dharavi: 20

Work activities: vegetable seller in Neta Nagar,

Spatial experience /useLived in 200 sq. ft. one storey hut before. Would have

expanded home if in huts: need more space now as kids

are older. Mezzanine largely used as storage, sometimes

kids study there.

Design involvement No, 11 people (members of the society committee)

made the decisions, they had 4 meetings to discuss the

building. Hariharan knew they would get 10x12 feet

space, didn’t feel right to ask for more, felt they were

getting a lot.

Community relationshipNo change. More space before for kids to play before –

not much open space in Rajiv Indira. Now play in open

space nearby or at school.

Like most / like leastSociety gives order, maintenance, discipline. Cleaner

and more convenient, don’t have to collect water. /

Should not hunt for problems; feels fortunate to have

what he has.

Photos

Sketches

Interview profile 01

Ground floor, flat #3

RAJIV INDIRA

MRS. SAFI CUN NIZAMApproximate age: 50s

Household size: 7 (husband, sons, daughter-in-law, child)

Years in Dharavi: 55 years, originally from Alahabad

Work activities: Son is a tailor in Kutiwari

Spatial experience /usePrevious house was bigger, 10 people lived there. Had a

large open space outside, ex-tended space of the house.

Relatives often stayed and worked in Dharavi, slept in

this area. It was part of a la rger area, part of which was

shared communal space.

Design involvement Design plans were prepared, society members did

not have to provide their opinions. Builder promised

to remove the slums, they did this. They showed the

community the plans, the community didn’t have input,

they were happy with what they were getting.

Community relationshipNot much change. Still well connected, when people

have problems they all come together.

Like most / like leastLess quarrels, more private space.

Before they had more open space, more room – here

they are more restricted.

Photos

Sketches


First floor, flat #102

RAJIV INDIRA

MR. SUBIAHApproximate age: 40s

Household size: 5 (Wife, two sons, one daughter)

Years in Dharavi: 40, before came from Tamil Nadu

Work activities: home based potato vadha makers

Spatial experi ence /useHalf flat was full of potato and veg., space organised

according to chain of production. Have more space

now, able to have equipment. Aspiration of son is to

have own shop.

Design involvement Family was one of 20 project affected peoples relocated

to Rajiv Indira.

They were not involved in the building design.

Community relationshipNo problems with neigh-bours. Nothing changed. No

communal space, always working, do not meet with

others in building.

Like most / like leastLess quarrels, more private space.

Before they had more open space, more room – here

they are more restricted.

Photos

Sketches


Fourth floor

RAJIV INDIRA

MRS. VENI NAIDOOApproximate age: 60 - 70 years old

Household size: 6 (husband, son, daughters, grandchild)

Years in Dharavi: 20, originally from Andhra Pradesh

Work activities: Husband and son are tailors

Spatial experi ence /useMore space than before, but quite unhappy not to have

the loft space - not aware they wouldn’t have this. When

son gets married will have to move out as there is not

enough space, but cannot afford rent.

Design involvement Husband spoke with the community leader, Veni does

not know about this. They had little involvement in the

process, they were only entitled to a flat.

Community relationshipThe house is better but the community life is totally

different than before. The relationship between us was

much easier, people’s doors were always open and we

saw each other every day. Now doors locked, people

live more in their own houses.

Like most / like leastUnhappy not to have the mezzanine space

Photos


Fourth floor, 421

RAJIV INDIRA

RAJIV INDIRA

MRS. PERMATAApproximate age: mid 20s

Household size: 4 (husband, daughter, in-law’s child)

Years in Dharavi: 20+, originally from Tamil Nadu

Work activities: husband is a baggage handler at aeroport

Spatial experience /useHave more space and a better division of it here. Before

used to cook in front of guests, now has kitchen. Drying

clothes used to drip on top of them. Mezzanine space

used mostly as storage area, for guests and for kids to

sleep if sick.

Design involvement Mostly men doing this, husband told her about what

was discussed: size of flats and 14 ft ceilings. Given

plan, shown drawings, didn’t find any issues of concern.

Meetings were held on Sundays so men ended up going

to them.

Community relationshipHas maintained contact with friends / neighbours.

Normal gathering space they have is not enough when

it is time for festivals and celebrations. Go to temples

instead when they need a big space, but would prefer

to have space in Rajiv Indira.

Like most / like leastLikes the high ceilings the most, much cleaner. Could

be a bit bigger.

Photos

Sketches


First floor, flat #109

RAJIV INDIRA

Mrs DeviApproximate age: early 20s

Household size: 6 (mother, 3 brothers, sister-in-law, son)

Years in Dharavi: 15 years

Work activities: making plastic bags, husband loads leather

on/off trucks in Dharavi, mother packages school bags, one

brother works at a bank

Spatial experience /useFlat is bigger than what they used to have. They redid

did the tiling when they got the flat. The walls were

bare and needed a lot of work.

Design involvement Mother used to go to the meetings discussing the Bharat

Janata housing. She had the option to either accept

the flat free of cost, or alternately, accept a financial

compensation.

Community relationshipLikes living in the huts more than the building; they

had more freedom before. For example, kids could

play anywhere and the space outside was part of their

homes. As the brother lost contact with all his friends

from the huts, he also feels like it was better before

when they wre all together.

Like most / like leastMother and brothers prefer living in the flat. They have

a sense of peace as the house is theirs. They can’t think

of anything in particular that is bad abour BJ.

Photos


BHARAT JANATA

flat 202

Mr FRANCIS & Mrs BASTIMEApproximate 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 /useFrancis: he is happy with the new home. Lots of trouble

in the hut.

Bastime: she has less space than before, she had two

rooms before.

Design involvement Francis is part of cooperative society commitee. He saw

the plan, agreed to 225 ft2. Did not talk to architect.

“Community should tell builder what they want but the

community needs to be strong (organised)” Francis

Community relationshipFrancis. They kept good relations.

Bastime has an appointment with the other women

living in the building at 6 o’clock everyday on the ground

floor to meet and chat.

Children play in the ground floor.

Like most / like leastBastime Like most: utilities, particularly tap water.

Like the least: the quality of construction materials

(degradation of the wall in the bathroom and kitchen).

Photos


BHARAT JANATA

flat 206

Mrs PANWASIApproximate age: early 40s

Household size: 5 (mother, father, 1 son, 2 daughters)


Work activities: Husband, building watchman in Mahim

Mrs Panwasi + daughter, production small

plastic bags and harinets.

Spatial experi ence /useGot more of less what they were promised. Have more

space than before. Before they lived with uncle’s family,

now they have their own space. It is nice to live in the

building.

Design involvement Husband/father told them about the BJ buildings. Not

really involved in the process. Took a long time, 12 years

ago they started talking about it.

Community relationshipPunuwasi and childrens meets friends downstairs, on

ground floor.

They have friends also around Dharavi. They meet at

people’s houses/huts.

Like most / like leastLike the most: Punuwasi says everyone has own space,

so no fights anymore People stay in their house, live by

society rules. Don’t have water problems like before.

Son would like a space to play cricket. He does not like

the poor quality of building.

Photos


BHARAT JANATA

flat 206

Mrs Razia AkbarApproximate age: early 40s

Household size: 5 (husband, 2 daughters, 1 son)

Years in Dharavi: 20

Work activities: husband works as taxi driver

Spatial experience /useWater does not come every day as promised. She uses

the tank when there is no water from tap.

Flat is about four times smaller than what they used to

have before.

Father and mother-in-law lived in the house.

Design involvement Before society was founded, didn’t have a role to play.

Mostly Razia’s father-in-law and husband were involved

in the BJ building process. She didn’t go to any meetings

and never saw the plans. Razia knew there was only 225

square feet so she was not expecting anything more.

Community relationshipRelationships haven’t changed much. Friends come

to their home as there is no specific public/open space

that they can use.

Kids play in corridor with the neighbouring kids.

Like most / like leastShe feels happier staying in the building. It is much

better than living in the huts they used to have prior to

moving to Bharat Janata

Photos


BHARAT JANATA

flat 405

Mrs SHANAMApproximate age: early 40s

Household size: 3 (1 daughter, 23 yrs old, 1 son, 17 yrs old)


Work activities: Daughter used to work in a courier office, since

father died, 10 months ago, she has stopped working Father

used to work in railways.

Spatial experi ence /useThe space is about the same as the one they had before

but is divided differently; their previous house had

2 rooms. Upgrated their flat: tiled floors, walls and

kitchen, all done very nicely, for the cost of 1.5 lakhs.

When they got the house, cement/mud was falling off. .

Design involvement Husband was a member of the society committee,

Shanam got informed on the process through him.

Building was due to be built almost 15 years back. They

were shown the plans but did not direclty participate to

the design process. Promised a marriage hall, different

spaces for religious activities, other spaces for specific

functions – none of this was manifested in the final

product.

Community relationshipDaughter: Liked living in transit camp as there was a

sense of community there. In BJ, society rule disallows

religious practice outside the home; they were given the

building and house, but not their vital social network.

Before, living in the huts, they had more open and

communal spaces.

Every evening around 6pm Shanam goes downstairs,

to ground floor of BJ, where she gathers with the other

women to socialize.

Like most / like leastRelations in the community was better before, but here

the house is better. Much better staying here, used to

have flooding with the rain, now much more comfortable.

Environment is quiet, not too much noise.

Photos


BHARAT JANATA

flat 402

Sketches

SAMSUDDINApproximate age: MID 40s

Household size: 56 people liv and work in flat


Work activities: home based activity (textile design; handiwork

embroidery

Spatial experience /useInterviewee used to have twice the space; same floor

area but in a two storey building. To maximize usage

of space, no furniture is kept in the house, the wooden

panes are set up across the room and the panels are

removed at night to sleep on the floor.

Design involvement Not involved in design.

Community relationshipRelationship change: people who used to live

immediately around Samsuddin in the huts have been

relocated throughout the city. Social relations have

been affected; his neighbours are not people he knew

before. If has time to socialize, he goes to his friend’s

houses whom are involved with the same type of work

as he is.

Like most / like leastHe is satisfied with his current arrangement as the

current work space is of better quality than the old one

(well ventilated and provides basic amenities. )

Photos


BHARAT JANATA

flat 302

Mrs Devar KripaApproximate age: early 40s

Household size: 4 (hsband, son and son’s wife)


Work activities: Vegetable seller, Husband is watchman

Spatial experi ence /useWater shortage is a problem. They have a tank, but when

it empties out, they have to go collect water and carry

it up to the flat. Had a very small house before, much

smaller than the one they have now.

Design involvement Not involved in the design. When they were living in the

hut, they felt like moving to a building was going to be

a great improvement.

Community relationshipPrior to the move, they had been together for a long time,

and were happy with their relation with neighbours.

Now in BJ, no one asks what is happening, people live

inside their house, they keep doors closed.

Like most / like leastNow they live in the building and are happy.

But feel that there is not enough open space. The walls

of building are of poor quality. The space they got is too

small for their extended family.

Photos


BHARAT JANATA

6th floor

What would you change about your house to help your business?

Do your neighbours help you with your business?

Do the other members of your family work with you?

Do you have workers and do they live here too?

Have you expanded your house over time to helpyou with your business?

How do you sell your items?

What are your plans for your children? Will they take over your business when they grow up?

Is the economic activity limited by restricted service provision? Would more water or electrical provision expand the business or change the type of business?

For how many generations has your family been involved in this type of business?

What are your thoughts and expectations of the DRP?

Interview Interview

Questionnaires

Home-based Activities

Chambda Bazaar

Drum maker [family] 14 people in the house (it is a joint family)

He has 5 brothers

2 women, 4 men present during our interview

They’ve been there for 60-70 years / 3 generations

SpaceHis house was a double-height space (one room)

He needs more space, and wants a separate workshop

space. He would add another floor but he has no

permission to do that existing propositions for the site

LivelihoodsThe drum-making requires great skill

All members of the family help with the business

It takes 3-4 days to make a drum

He gets Rs. 3,000 for one drum

He sells the drums all across the coast of India but he

doesn’t have a license to so this himself

400-500 pieces per month is the maximum production

(depending on the order)

About DRPIf he moves, he thinks his business will stop and he will

lose his network of customers

He has a sense of place and belonging here, he was

quite emotional about the DRP and moving

Photos

Sketches


Photos

Food stand [owner]7 person live in house

All relatives live around

Rented from a family member

Will be moving soon because they cannot afford the rent

SpaceRoom was used as restaurant seating area and cooking

place and storage and in the night everyone slept

there.

LivelihoodsHe sells food to the residents live in the community.

He also sets up his stall outside the room and sells the

food.

The other renters work in Dharavi and also outside.

About DRPHe told us DRP will not affect him because he is renting.

Seemed indiffrent.


Sewing workshop [family]7 person live in house

All relatives live around

Rented from a family member

Will be moving soon because they cannot afford the rent

SpacePrefer to meet friends inside house Outside is used for

dishwashing and laundry

Could make great use of a second small room, for work

LivelihoodsSmall beads on bottom of pajama pants

Receive pants already made. Add beads. Returns the

pants with the beads on.

- 2rs per piece

- 20 pieces per day

Need very minimal space to do this. Mainly done by

hand stitching

About DRPPrefer house to high rise.

Seems to be because they are so strongly anchored in

their community.

Photos

Sketches


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.

SpaceShe seemed to have quite a large house with refrigerator, freezer, computer and other amenities.Outside space is not used.

LivelihoodsShe teaches in Hindi & English.

She has 25-30 kids that she watches.

Her husband is a taxi driver.

About DRPShe thinks a high-rise is better.She would keep her daycare since she had it for 20 years.


How many people work here?Do they live in Dharavi? If yes, where.What is their average income?What is their daily schedule? How many working hours? How many shifts per day?Is there any federation amongst the workers?

Is the location important for the business?Is the owner renting the place or not?Can the business be relocated in another place?

What are the different phases of production?What is the daily, monthly and weekly production?Do the raw materials come from Dharavi?How the delivery process is being made?Are the goods sold in Dharavi or not?How much do they sell the goods?

What are their personal aspirations in terms of their businesses?Do they want to change something in terms of the space they use within the commercial units?Do they know about DRP? What they think about it? Are they willing to go somewhere else?

Interview

Questionnaires

Manufacturing

Chambda Bazaar

Bakery [manager]

NetworksDifferent traders within Dharavi. He contacts several

manufactures to bring the material from different

states.

One state is at the centre of Dharavi. The oil comes from

Gujarat (West).

About DRPHe doesn’t want to leave from Chambra Bazaar

Photos

Sketches


Space & LivelihoodsProcess of production: Store flour on the ground (do

not use substantive material). Mix flour with butter in

the machine and then bake the paste on the oven for

4 hours.

The bakery is open 24 hours a day. 12 people work there

in two shifts. The manager takes a break for 6 hours and

sleeps in the bakery. They come from 2 different states

apart from Maharastra. They normally work for 4 - 5

months and go back to their families for 2 months and

come again back. They don’t have bank holidays.

Treasurer of Pottery Society

NetworksRetail shops in Dharavi as part of Mumbai, whole sale

throughout Maharashtra state and beyond. (local, state,

nation).

About DRPSelf-designated cluster unit plan, 1998

Reject the DRP

Have held talks, shown proposals for own (self )

redevelopment in terms of livelihoods etc.

Photos


Space & LivelihoodsFamily oriented enterprise with long traditions

Children are schooled and became doctors, architects

etc.

Workspace is generally part of house interior

VLT – Vacant Land Tenancy

Store bag-luggage manufacture [workers]

NetworksNo network - individual

Material: from Dharavi

Products go to central Mumbai and then to suburb

area

Space & LivelihoodsFamily business, second generation, since 1965

Process: all the phases of production at the place

4 people, migrated

Residence: the 4 workers work 11 hours and sleep at the

working area.

About DRPThe owner has his own tenure so he can get one store

and his aspiration is on ground floor shop and upper

floor residence.

Photos

Sketches


Leather industry [owner]

NetworksTotal 5 – 6 leather industries in Dharavi.

Deliver to different places (Kolkata, Chennai).

Products: Nothing stays in Dharavi (industrial safety

belts, military shoes). They export mostly in Europe.

The buffalo comes from Western Maharastra (Deonar)

No federation. No network.

The tanning in Chennai. Tracks are coming from Chennai.

In Dharavi the materials are ready.

It’s a fashion industry business which exports nationally

and internationally (British, Germany, Emirates).

Space & LivelihoodsHe exports leather products, as there is no future to

skin.

Accessibility: Delivery by tracks. They load directly

outside the store.

Storage on the ground floor.

About DRP“I will be very happy for the redevelopment plan. If

I have a good place for my business I want to stay.

Change has to come. But here people are attached

emotionally with each other. They don’t want to

leave. They have everything here and their happy. But

change must happen. The airport is very close, the

road. For me it’s the best place to work but if I cannot

stay I’m willing to negotiate for a good place. We are

preparing for this. We have to train the people. To make

them have skills”.

Photos

Sketches


How long have you worked in Dharavi? Where are your from? Why did you leave that place and chose to move to Dharavi? What do you do for a living? How many people work with/under you?Do you own or rent the house?

What would you change about your shop to help you business?Where do your workers live or work?Do any of your family members work with you?Can you walk us through your typical day/ night and explain if/ when/ how you use the workshop and Shop?Have you expanded you shop over time to help you with your Business?How do you get and sell your items? How does the network work (if there is one)/who are your customers?What are you future plans for your children? Will they take over your business?Are you a member of any organization?If so why did you join it?How often do you meet?

What do you know about the DRP? How do you feel about it?Do you know anyone shifted to in the buildings from Dharavi? Can you continue your work in a high rise building?Why would you like to change in your life or of your children if given a chance in future? Would you like to ask us anything?

Interview

Questionnaires

Retail activities

Chambda Bazaar

Jewellery [President of Dharavi Gold Association]

NetworksDepends on local network to buy and sell gold

President of Dharavi Gold Association

Labour3 – 6 male workers.

OwnersOwner of the shop since 1990

All Shopkeepers Associations did not protect them from

the dispute thus starting the Dharavi Gold Association

Problem with the authenticity of the gold leading to

police disputes.

Meets 2-3 times every year.

7 member committee reporting to him.

Part of the Save Dharavi Movement.

Photos

Sketches


Embroidery Shop [Owner]

NetworksSupplies to Dadar Market in Mumbai by train or taxi

twice a month

LabourPeak season 25 workers; off peak 6 works.

Sleeps in the same workshop

Takes 5 hours to make one piece

OwnersCame to Dharavi 10 months ago

In a rented workshop of the first floor of the building

Do not belong to any union

Wife and kids lived in Dharavi for 2 months. Could not

adapt so they moved back.

Photos

Sketches


Bakery [Owner]

NetworksBiscuits exported outside of Dharavi

Sold locally. Biscuits transported by bikes then trucks

would then take them all over India.

Raw materials delivered once a month from various

parts of India (flour from Goregeon).

LabourMigrant workers lives in the dormitory space within the

bakery cluster. Works there for 8-10 months, goes back

to the village for 2 months, then comes back works in 2

shifts (day and night shift). More people in the day shift

than the night shift. Factory runs for 24 hours.

OwnersInitially more than 1 bakery but has to sell them off

Sold them off for the leather and garment business

Son joined his business.

Photos

Sketches


Seamstress [Owner]

NetworksClients in Dharavi.

Does not need more enough clients as is.

Part of a SRA group who meets 3-4 times.

LabourWorks on her own. A home base economic activity.

OwnersOnly does women’s clothing

Does beading/ stitching as well.

Beading needs special device.

Stitched before marriage.

Lived in a village before coming to Pune.

Husband is a cobbler.

Not aware of the DRP.

Would like the main road to be developed.

Not worried because she will get ground commercial

space since she got license

Photos

Sketches


http://www.buddsinmumbai.blogspot.com

Third

Documents

Dharavi Contested Urbanism_BUDD09_low Res