Dharavi: a case of contested urbanism

ParticipantsMay 2009 Master of Science in Building and Urban Design in Development (2008 2009) Development Planning Unit University College London

Members of FacultyDr. Camillo Boano Isis P Nuez Ferrera

NationalityItaly Honduras

StudentsMike Wai-Hou Chan Laura Colloridi Debeshi Chakraborty Barbara Dovarch Melissa Garcia Lamarca William Hunter Su-Eun Jung Benjamin Leclair-Paquet Xiaolu Li Phirany Lim Gynna Millan Franco Kelvin Naidoo Hye-Joo Park Nota Syrrothanasi Pooja Varma Andrew Wade Hong Kong Italy India Italy Canada United States of America South Korea Canada China United States of America Colombia South Africa Korea Greece India United States of America

Participants Table of Contents Image index Acronyms Acknowledgements Executive summary

01 Chapter Introduction1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Locating Mumbai: A World Class City? Dharavi: The Heart of Contested Urbanism Terms of Reference Theoretical Framework Vision

006

04 Chapter Current Reality in Dharavi: Analysis and Emerging Issues

028

02 Chapter Methodology2.1 The Process 2.2 Asumptions and Limitations

013

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

03 Chapter Towards the Dharavi Redevelopment Project?3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Policy Comparisons and Critique Physical Proposals and Critiques Contested Visions of the DRP Conclusions

05 Chapter Bridging the Gap : Rationale for the Scenarios018

048

06 Chapter The Scenarios

078

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

IMAGE INDEX01 Chapter1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 map of Greater Mumbai map of Dharavi photo of DRP proposal sketch from Mumbai Mirror images of negotiating the change from hutment dweller to tenement dweller diagram of actor pressures (adapted from Pieterse 2003)

03 Chapter3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 figure of evolution of government approach to slums photo of present Mumbai by Chirodeep Chaudhuri photo of present Mumbai by Chirodeep Chaudhuri images of DRP transformation in Dharavi map of the 5 sectors by Mehta image of DRP proposed podium typology from Mumbai Mirror diagram of transformation process of Indian cities towards a world class city

04 Chapter4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12a 4.12b 4.12c 4.13 4.14 4.15a 4.15b 4.16 4.17a 4.17b 4.18a example analysis diagram- issue criteria vs core analytical concepts Map showing Rajiv Indira location within Dharavi area Map showing Bharat Janata location within Dharavi area Images showing commercial activity scenes with current plan location and corresponding analytical Images showing larger-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram. Images showing small-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram. Images showing the physical layout of interaction space in the previous and the current situation and correImages showing the quality of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) and corresponding an-

diagram

sponding analytical diagram alytical diagram Images showing the use of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) with current plan l o c a t i o n Images showing the use of communal space around the building (Rajiv Indira) with current plan location and corresponding analytical diagram and corresponding analytical diagram Interview photos (with the community leader of Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram map showing Dharavi development in 1933 map showing Dharavi development in 1969 map showing Dharavi development in 2008 major road linkages throughout Dharavi land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar photos showing use of open space sketch illustrating activities around shared open space diagram showing production chain at various geographical scales photos showing various scales of commercial enterprise analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (enterprise activity) photo showing live/work space (migrant workers) surrounding the question of participation in design

4.18b 4.19a 4.20a 4.20b 4.21a 4.21b

analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (live/work tenements) photos of home-based activities (and their location) within Chambda Bazaar (map) interview photos- different scale home-based commercial activities analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (home-based work) photos showing diversity of open space- commercial/residential analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (diverse spatial use)

05 Chapter5.1 diagram of setting the scenario

06 Chapter6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 Diagram showing the varying degrees of participation Image illustrating the exclusionary nature of the DRP Image illustrating means of design communication Diagram showing mulit-actor participation Image showing the proposed monolithic typology of the DRP Photographs of livelihood profile in Rajiv Indira, Unit 005 Photographs of livelihood profile in Rajiv Indira, Unit 115 Photographs of livelihood profile in Rajiv Indira, Unit 415 Diagram showing possibility for expansion under the DRP Diagram of options to purchase additional space Diagram of enabling spatial proposals Conceptual proposals map Table of Development Strategy Schema Diagram illustrating process of community involvement Poster of layout options Urban density map Photograph of current situation (home-based units) Diagram of proposed space-use arrangement Place-Policy Matrix (home-based units) Illustration of migrants use of space Illustration of production networks Diagram showing the separation of spatial uses Place-Policy Matrix (work-based units) Diagram of current situation Diagram of proposed arrangement (rehabilitation high-rise) Place-Policy Matrix (rehabilitation high-rise) Photographs of current situation (Bandra-Kurla Complex) Diagram of proposed arrangement (private sector high-rise) Place-Policy Matrix (private sector high-rise)

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

CLIFF DRP EAC FSI GoM HDIL KRVIA MCGM MHADA MMC MMRDA NSDF SRA SPARC TDR

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 during our stay in Mumbai. The following people have been particularly supportive of this work: Mrs. Sheela Patel, Director of SPARC; Mr. Sundar Burra, Advisor to SPARC; Aseena Viccajee, Systems Manager of SPARC and SSNS; Mr. Anirudh Paul, Director of KRVIA and Ms. Benita Menezes of KRVIA. Furthermore, we would like to thank several people who contributed to this work through their presentations and the meetings we had with them: Mr. A. Jockin, President of National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF); Mr. Gautam Chatterjee, Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of MHADA, and Officer on Special Duty for the Dharavi Redevelopment Project; Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, Project Director (MUTP) and Metropolitan Commissioner of MMRDA; Mr. U.P.S. Madan, Project Manager of the Mumbai Transformation Support Unit; Mr. S.K. Joshi Advisor to SPARC; Ms. Kalpana Sharma, author and journalist; Ms. Neera Adarkar, architect and activist and P.K. Das, architect and activist.

Many thanks go to the women of Mahila Milan, especially Prema, our facilitators from SPARC, namely Lopez ,Lopez, Sharmila and Katia, and our KRVIA contacts, specifically Neelima, Rutwick, Amruyta and Siddhartha, as well as Rochit, who all went to great lengths to facilitate our fieldwork. Your help in navigating Dharavi was invaluable. Additionally we would like to thank all our tutors at the Development Planning Unit, University College London, for their guidance throughout this academic year, with special reference to Dr. Camillo Boano, Director of the MSc in Building and Urban Design in Development course, for his constant encouragement, support and guidance. We would also like to thank the BUDD Course Coordinator Isis P Nunez Ferrera for her fruitful discussions, suggestions and constructive critiques. Finally, we would like to express our deep gratitude to the people of Dharavi, who were always eager to open their houses and shops, sharing with us their aspirations and demonstrating the strength of their community.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Presentation This report was produced by the students of the MSc Building and Urban Design in Development (BUDD) course at the Development Planning Unit (DPU) of The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment at University College London (UCL). It is the product of an extensive six-week programme that included three weeks of fieldwork and interviews with major stakeholders and actors, alongside lectures and a comprehensive literature review. The purpose of the study was to understand the complex and often conflicting interrelationship between livelihoods, policy and space in Dharavi, Mumbai. The specific sites of study were two buildings of rehabilitated slum dwellers Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira and Chambda Baazar, an area characterised by minimal high-rise development and significant commercial and home-based economic activity. After an introduction to the contexts of Mumbai and Dharavi, the report outlines the policy context and the current masterplan being pursued by the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP). Based on fieldwork and analysis, findings are then presented in regards to the experienced impact on livelihoods on rehabilitated slum dwellers in moving from hutments to buildings in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira, and the anticipated impact of such urban transformation in Chambda Bazaar. Two Scenarios are then presented, the first of which proposes adjustments within the parameters of the current DRP, and the second which proposes an alternative redevelopment strategy.

Key Findings The Dharavi Redevelopment Project In order to satisfy Mumbais intent to become a World Class City, the municipal government has established objectives that are to be met through a series of major urban infrastructure and redevelopment projects, hand in hand with a drive towards the vision of a slum free city. Through a state facilitated PublicPrivate Partnership (PPP), the architect Mukesh Mehta and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) have developed the DRP, which is in essence a tabula-rasa redevelopment strategy for the entire territory of Dharavi. Its key characteristics are: Dividing Dharavi into five sectors, to be Increasing density by setting a Floor redeveloped by five developers; Space Index (FSI) of four as a regulatory tool, as compared to two and a half in the rest of Mumbai; Adoptinganewsingulartypologysolution consisting of a three-storey podium with highrise building above. Financingthroughcrosssubsidisationand commodification of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in a Public-Private Partnership. Allocating 300 square foot flats at no cost for all residents currently living in Dharavi and listed in the census of 1 January, 2000.

002 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

Analysis of experienced and anticipated impact on livelihoods Findings that emerged from the analysis of field observations and numerous semi-structured interviews clearly illustrate that the people of Dharavi should not be perceived as a homogenous group, but rather an extremely diverse conglomeration of sub-groups. A few highlighted key findings, as filtered through the analytical concepts of policy, livelihoods and space and the four criteria forming the theoretical framework - namely diversity, adaptability, flexibility and multiplicity, show: Experienced impacts in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira The current Slum Rehabilitation Act (SRA) creates a trade off for owners of both commercial units and residential space located in the same structure to choose between one or the other, thus failing to recognise the multiplicity of use in existing building structures. Policy is thus inflexible to peoples 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 peoples involvement in the building design process, fundamental to identify peoples 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 compensation within commercial upon migrant workers who work for free or nominal clusters; such flexible conditions of work-live spaces and the adaptations that owners have made through time to address labourers needs are not addressed in SRA policy. Small-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-

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 003

existing uses, where many activities are extended into open spaces outside the main structures. Such multiplicity and adaptation through time is not recognised at the policy level. Urban Analysis Our fieldwork enabled a better understanding of the urban forms present in Dharavi, and of their association with different uses and social interactions. Some key findings illustrate that: Correlation between societal organisations and living clusters was strongest in hutments formed around multi-functional open spaces, and hutments with direct access open spaces. Nagars(neighbourhoods)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,

Recommendations The findings of our study indicate a clear disconnect between the proposed plan for the redevelopment of Dharavi and the current situation of the stakeholders most affected by the process: the citizens of Dharavi. Our recommendations come in the form of two scenarios, each containing various proposals that reconcile our findings to different visions for Dharavi. The first scenario explores new ways to include key findings into the DRP, while the second proposes an alternative vision which abandons certain components of the DRP, with clear justifications for each departure, in order to be more sensitive to the current reality of the area and its citizens. These scenarios in particular were created in recognition of the diversity of stakeholders involved in the DRP process, including the recently created Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP as the prime civil society representative body, in order to offer new options and perspectives as well as to support continuous and incremental negotiations. The First Scenario highlights the need for greater transparency, citizen involvement, and the recognition of the heterogeneous nature of the residents of Dharavi. The aims of the proposals in this Scenario are to: Suggest grassroots involvement by directly engaging with the existing civil society organisations in Dharavi; Propose the sale of additional floor space to recipients of the provided flats.

by adding storeys to the ground level to accommodate changing needs. Incremental building accounts for the diversity of the urban environment, and the synthesis of different storey buildings in close proximity. Manufacturing clusters requiring greater accessibility were strategically located along primary and secondary local roads.

004

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

This plural approach to housing provision looks to be more adaptive and enabling to people through the process of transformation, by acknowledging the existing diversity in capacity and needs within the community. It recognises the potential of existing households to participate more equitably in the process. The Second Scenario underlines the multiplicity and diversity of the citizens of Dharavi, and thus the need for a wider scale and complex urban proposal. Regarding the redevelopment strategy, the programme presented in this scenario conceptualises the need and means to: each Integratemigrants; Acknowledge the role of the different Provide a range of architectural options, adapted to specific conditions of

Conclusions The report outlines the importance of addressing the diversity of needs and aspirations within Dharavi and Mumbai at an institutional level by allocating suitable room for manoeuvre within a relevant and responsive policy framework. While criticising the DRP for not being reflectively informed, nor seemingly acknowledging the diversity present at multiple levels within Dharavi, the report seeks to demonstrate means by which such action can be taken.

morphological forms in Dharavi;

residents; Recognise the historical quarters and the emotional attachment of citizens to such spaces; Incorporate, with greater integrity, involvement of the citizens of Dharavi in the process of transformation.



01 Chapter

INTRODUCTION

Locating Mumbai: a World Class City? Dharavi: the Heart of Contested Urbanism Terms of Reference Theoretical Framework Vision

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

1.1 Locating Mumbai: 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, DCruz and Burra, 2003: 160). The economic liberalisation of India in the early 1990s marked a shift in priorities and the beginning of Mumbais 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 Asias 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 MumbaisFigure 1.2 DharaviBandra-Kurla Complex (BKC) Dharavi

Mumbai

Dharavi Chambda Bazaar

Figure 1.1 Greater Mumbai

development pushed northwards, Dharavi became its geographical centre. Currently it is located between inner-city districts and the financial centre BandraKurla Complex, near Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport. Strong transportation connections link the periphery of Dharavi to Mumbai, helping to make Dharavi a focal area for development. This case of contested urbanism highlights land values and built densities at the core of the argument over Mumbais 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


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. Dharavis treatment by various government(Sources: BBC, 2006; Sharma, 2000; Chatterjee interview, 2009)

A Snapshot of Dharavi- Geographic area: 239 hectares - Number of nagars (neighbourhoods): over 80 - Population size: Between 700,000 and 1 million people - Institutions: 27 temples, 11 mosques, 6 churches, 3 primary/secondary schools - Economic activity: Annual turnover of business is estimated at 350 million - 23% of the population is employed in small scale industries - 70-80% of Dharavis workforce also reside there

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

DHARAVI case of contested urbanism 009 DHARAVI a a case of contested urbanism 006

1.3 Terms of Reference The terms of reference for the work in Dharavi are as follows:1. To conduct an urban analysis of Chambda Bazaar, aiming to explore its spatial integration in the wider context, taking into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed plans alongside assets and livelihoods 2. To explore the experienced impact on livelihoods in two in-situ development projects Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira coordinated by Mumbai-based NGO, SPARC, and the anticipated impact on livelihoods of the in-situ development in Chambda Bazaar. Focus is specifically on the spatial implications both for commercial structures and home-based economic activities, namely exploring the relationship between a.Livelihoods structures b.Livelihoods and design for home-based economic activities infrastructure 3. To explore with the different actors involved (household members and community groups, NGOs, and relevant government and private sector organizations) proposals which will strengthen the in-situ development in Dharavi in the future in a manner which will contribute to their transformative intentions and design for commercial

fragmented and unevenly distributed power prioritises the vision of some actors over others. Transformation is thus understood as a process that occurs as dominant and resistant forces converge within a context of cooperative conflict. This fundamentally alters the production of space and policy, thus enabling the enhancement of livelihoods through time. The concept of livelihoods is understood as people, their capacity and means of living, demonstrated by the confluence of five distinct types of capital: human, social, physical, financial, and natural (Chambers and Conway, 1991). The production of space and policy is thus deemed to be appropriate and relevant when the criteria of diversity, adaptability, flexibility, and multiplicity are present, and the critical integration of these criteria is a prerequisite for sustaining a transformative process. Within Dharavi, a linked spatial-political landscape, transformation needs to elevate the negative notion of hutment dwellers to recognised citizens as tenement dwellers, and be facilitated by appropriate and relevant participatory processes. Cooperative conflict is a situation where the inherent reality of conflict is recognised and all parties work together in this contested context to reach an agreed point that is constantly reconstructed and renegotiated (Levy, 2007: 6). Currently a multiplicity of conflicting forces, visions, identities and power relations exist within Dharavi, where urban change is driven by central dominant forces (DRP, MHADA, etc.) and countered by peripheral resistant forces (the citizens of Dharavi, SPARC, NSDF, etc.) that struggle for inclusion in the process, with the latters claims negotiated by the Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP. Some actors have adopted strategies for inclusion and influence in this process by acting as a collective, as is the case with the Alliance of SPARC, NSDF and Mahila Milan, the first two represented on the Expert Advisory Panel. An identified platform for congruence is the productive capacity of Dharavi, providing an opportunity for cooperation within this contested environment. The desired result is that the aspirations and assets of the citizens of Dharavi become valued and included as integral parts of the urban network at multiple scales. Citizen is explicitly used here as a political term to acknowledge a political community, as well as the rights, obligations and claims to which the state must be accountable (Friedmann and Douglass, 1998: 1).

1.4 Theoretical Framework In the context of these terms of reference, it is critical to clarify the entry point into the case, our understanding of the concept of transformation, and the criteria by which we judge the success of the Dharavi Redevelopment Projects (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 (Dike, 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


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

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.

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

1.5 Vision Dharavi stands at a threshold of heated debate fuelled by market pressures and conflicting interests related to the present reality and future image of Mumbai. In the context of the movement towards a global, universal city vision, we recognise the unique, multiple and dynamic character of Dharavi alongside the need to reconcile global demands with local aspirations of Mumbai. Highlighting the capacities, diversity and resilience of the citizens of Dharavi, we propose strategies of transformation, inclusion, livelihood and the production of building and urban forms must be critically integrated within a flexible and responsive framework of individual and cultural contexts and adaptations through time.

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


ReferencesBBC 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. Dike 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., DCruz C., Burra S., 2003. Beyond evictions in a global city: peoplemanaged resettlement in Mumbai. Environment and Urbanization, vol 14, no 1, April 2002. Sharma Kalpana, 2000. Rediscovering Dharavi. Penguin books India, Delhi.


010


02 ChapterMETHODOLOGYProcess Assumptions and Limitations

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

2.1 Process Due to the shifting location of our work, the methodology used in this case evolved through time. Introduced on 16 January, 2009, the pre-trip research began in London on 23 January, 2009. A series of lectures and presentations was complemented with a vast literature review from books, academic journals and websites. Information was then triangulated to account for the various perspectives and potential biases of authors in order to provide a clearer foundation for mapping key actors involved in the case, as presented for critical feedback in London in February 2009. The next step, sustained until we left for the field in early May, was the development of our diagnosis and strategies, which again were provoked and challenged through feedback in early May. During our work in Mumbai, from 5 to 25 May, 2009, the established methods of data collection continued to expand and diversify alongside our perceptions of the situation. Regular morning lectures from individuals and representatives of the various actors were supplemented with afternoon sessions on site in Dharavi, facilitated by SPARC, KRVIA and Mahila Milan. Our fieldwork in Chambda Bazaar, Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata consisted of field observations and both semi-structured and informal interviews with residents, with the goal of bridging information gaps in the relationships between spatial design, policy and livelihoods. Five interviews were conducted with residents of Rajiv Indira, fourteen in Bharat Janata, and around 50 interviews in Chambda Baazar, with these including informal discussions alongside more formal in-depth semi-structured interviews. Key highlights from 24 of the in-depth interviews can be found in Appendix 2. Mapping of urban form, economic networks and livelihood patterns was also conducted in Chambda Bazaar to link together spatial layout at the scale of the individual nagar (neighborhood) with the whole of Dharavi through extensive networks of production. Livelihood profiles, as highlighted opposite, upper right hand side and in Appendix 2, and network patterns became a key theme throughout our research, informing our conceptual framework and analysis, and subsequently laying the foundation for our scenario proposals. The first took shape through the semi-structured in-depth interviews, where questions sought to understand peoples 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



03 ChapterTOWARDS THE DHARAVI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT?Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Policy Comparison and Critique Physical Proposals and Critiques Con icting Visions of the DRP Conclusions

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

3.1 Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums Public land encroachment in Indian cities is neither a minor nor a new problem. Central, state and local government have engaged the issue since the 1950s with very different approaches. While the latter have a much greater relevance on housing matters, central government is the largest single owner of urban land in India (Burra, 2005: 68) (Figure 3.1). After Indias independence in 1947, the first government approach to the issue of slums has been a harsh policy of clearance; slums were systematically demolished without any consideration for the families living on them. The radical policy of slum clearance lasted more than two decades, until in the 70s the evidence of the method failure in addition to practical considerations called for a change. The government perception of slums changed from being a problem to a possible solution to the problem itself. The main achievements of this decade have been policies for the provision to slums of basic amenities such as water and sanitation, the recognition of the need to relocate slum dwellers affected by government

projects, and a census (1976) of slum dwellers living on government land. In the second half of the 80s the Bombay Urban Development Project ran two programmes (Slum Upgrading and Low-income Group Shelter Programme) that although did not gave exceptional practical results, have the merit of introducing the issue of land tenure and the idea of financing housing for LIG through the sale of properties to middle and upper income groups. In the 90s the idea of cross-subsided projects for LIG was consolidated, and due to World Bank pressure, the Government of Maharashtra included resettlement and rehabilitation has an integral part of every project. The Government aims were to minimize resettlements in favour of in-situ rehabilitation, to carry out the project with a more participative approach and to maintain the existing social networks. An important step towards the recognition of slum dwellers rights was made in 1995 with the approval of the Slum Rehabilitation Act; this act protects from eviction every citizen that can prove they have been living in Mumbai since 1st January 1995 (subsequently

Figure 3.1 figurea of evolution of governemnt approach to slums


Figure 3.2 Mumbai, photo by Chirodeep Chaudhuri

Figure 3.3 Mumbai, photo by Chirodeep Chaudhuri

modified to 1st of January 2000). In 2001 the Slum Rehabilitation Act was amended and it was added that if demolition was unavoidable in order to clear land, some alternative accommodation must be provided for the affected people. 3.2 Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Under conditions of global neoliberalism that have characterised urban India from 1991 onwards, Mumbai has around 13 million citizens, with an additional 7 million in the suburbs and increasing numbers migrating from all parts of India over the past decades. While Mumbai became Indias financial capital in this period, at the same time over half the citys residents live in informal settlements. One of Mumbais main goals is the transformation into a world-class city by shifting its image from the location of Asias biggest slum to a model of redevelopment (Mhaiskar lecture, 12 May 2009). In order to become a city comparable to Shanghai, politicians intended to replace informal settlements with high-rise developments. (Figure 3.2 and 3.3) Due to its strategic geographical location and pressures on the island city, as explained in section 1.2, the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) was introduced as an integrated special planning area in 2004 and it was declared as a crucial public project by the government of Maharashtra in 2007. The DRP has been developed by the architect Mukesh Mehta to the present. Declared as a special planning area in 2004, the Dharavi redevelopment Project (DRP) divides the area into five sectors for development by five private sector developers, to be selected through a transparent bidding process (Chatterjee lecture, 8 May 2009). It envisions a spatial transformation from horizontal, lowrise slums to a high-rise podium style typology (Figure 3.4); yet how will this change be manifested in reality

(Figure 3.5). While the DRP process claims that it seeks to treat Dharavi residents as partners in the project and to ensure that livelihood issues are adequately addressed in planning and implementation (ibid.), there is at present no clear path or method for either to occur. Since the main parts of the DRP are based on the Slum Redevelopment Act, private developers are required to contribute to improve infrastructure. Under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS), adopted in 1995, private developers build social housing for the inhabitants on the site and in turn benefit from additional for-sale buildings to generate profits. However, these rules have been modified for the area of Dharavi in the DRP. 3.3 Policy Comparison and Critique Several policies shape the influence of the DRP, which have been created for various reasons and have varying impacts on the residents of Dharavi. Using these policies as a starting point, it is then possible to imagine the physical territories they will chart. They have the potential to either further embed existing inequalities, or to chart new territory toward overcoming them. One Single Solution According to the Maharashtra State Housing Policy for slum rehabilitation, the in-situ redevelopment can be implemented through a menu of options such as clusters, townships, and others. On the contrary, the Dharavi Redevelopment Project carries out in-situ redevelopment through the implementation of a single solution for the whole of Dharavi. This shows that the DRP does not refer to the unique characteristics of place, with over 80 different nagars in Dharavi whose diversity cannot be sustained through a single alternative. In order to sustain this variety, the DRP needs to be changed into a more comprehensive plan, focusing on citizens wideranging needs and aspirations.DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 021

Figure 3.4 DRP proposal sketch: Mumbai Mirror

Figure 3.5 negotiating the change from hutment deweller to tenement deweller

only in rhetoric at present. Dharavis citizens are thus not Land Tenure The SRA secures land tenure as the basis for redevelopment; however the DRP considers only unit tenure rather than specifically the security of land tenure. The matter of land tenure status in the DRP is unclear. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) owns approximately 77 per cent of the land in Dharavi, with the rest held by other government and private parties (Patel S. et al. 2009: 245). Furthermore, the land is used for various private leases and public purposes. The issue of land tenure seems to be a challenge to the DRP in cooperating with diverse interests between different stakeholders. In addition, the DRP provides certain residents with the security of unit tenure; hence it seems that the DRP does not guarantee existing residents the stable ownership of their house in the long term, leaving a possibility that the inhabitant will be evicted in the future. Community Participation Under the SRA, slum rehabilitation can be led by housing cooperative societies in partnership with NGOs. Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira are examples of SRA projects in partnership with SPARC and the Alliance. Even though the DRP mentions community participation, a participatory approach in Dharavis redevelopment exists022 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

considered and their spatial and livelihood requirements and aspirations remain unrecognised. Eligibility The slum dwellers that can prove residence from before 01 January 2000 are entitled to permanent accommodation at no cost. The DRP is divisive at heart since it segregates those who are eligible to be resettled in the new rehabilitation units, (about 25% of the population according to Gautam Chatterjee) from the remaining residents of Dharavi, who are ineligible (cited in Business India, 2009). The residents who are ineligible will be left to find a new shelter and working space on their own. Transferrable Development Rights The SRA scheme notes that the surplus of Floor Space Index (FSI) should be used for the low-income housing and infrastructure on site. The DRP uses the surplus FSI as an incentive to the developers, who can sell additional development rights on the open market. It is quite evident that the surplus will contribute to the developers interest in maximizing their profits. This market driven policy will make it impossible to improve the quality of existing residents living conditions.

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

Figure 3.6 DRP transformation in Dharavi

A Snapshot of the DRP - MCGM owns 76% of the land in Dharavi - Division into 5 sectors, undertaken through a public-private partnership model by 5 different developers - Stimulus FSI to be used as an incentive for developers - Global FSI of 4.0 (compared to 2.5) - 42% of land area for rehabilitation / 58% for market-sale construction - All hutment dwellers on electoral rolls prior to 01 January 2000 are eligible for rehabilitation (one unit / family) - Podium Typology proposed as a singular solution - 11-Member Expert Advisory Panel Assembled in 2008 - Socioeconomic Survey of Dharavi conducted by the NGO, MASHAL - Formalises all economic networks, incrementally taxing the citizens of Dharavi - Free rehabilitation units to be 269 sq. ft. internal area with 31 sq. ft. balcony(Source: Chatterjee meeting, 16 May 2009) 008

DHARAVI case of contested urbanism DHARAVI a acase of contested urbanism 023

3.4 Physical Proposals and Critiques Five Sectors The Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) proposes several physical alterations for Dharavi. The first and most crucial point, in terms of spatial planning, is regarding the division of Dharavi into five sectors. (Figure 3.7 and 3.8) These five sectors do not correspond to existing community boundaries and social nagars in Dharavi. The proposed division is made mainly by preserving partially the existing road network and by considering the physical layout of the road grid without understanding the social and cultural complexities within that network. According to this specific division, five different developers will undertake the redevelopment for each sector. It is quite evident that the developers will aim to maximise their profits without acknowledging the social and cultural richness of Dharavi. It is the states role, however, through the developmental plans, to achieve a comprehensive compromise between the needs of the developers and the aspirations of the people. Additionally, according to the DRP, 70% of new units are designated for rehabilitation; the remaining 30% is for sale, while more than 80% of this sale portion will be for commercial use, in order to finance the project. This fact brings into doubt whether the quality of the rehabilitation units will be equal to the ones designated for sale. Floor Space Index of 4 Another important element of the DRP is the increase of the Floor Space Index (FSI) from 2.5 to 4. This increase is applied only to Dharavi. Moreover, the rehabilitation units will not exceed the height of eight storeys (G+8) but in some cases, depending on the regulations, the number of floors will be increased to ten (G+10). The size of the rehabilitation units provided for free to the eligible slum dwellers will be 300 sq. ft., which can be raised to 400 sq. ft. with the payment of an extra construction cost. This again raises questions the inclusiveness of the project, since not everyone will able to meet the specific requirements of DRP. Furthermore, the increased FSI will contribute to higher urban densities, having massive impacts not only on the physical layout but also on the social and economic life of Dharavi. Podium Typology The third key element of the DRP is the proposedFigure 3.8 The 5 sector by Mehta Figure 3.7 original Dharavis division in 85 nagars

podium typology (Figure 5.6). This image published in the Mumbai Mirror newspaper illustrates quite clearly the transformative intentions of the project. We can see how Dharavi changes from a horizontal, low-rise typology to a vertical, high-rise one. As seen from the image the residential units will be placed on the top floors of the buildings, while the commercial units will be located at the ground and first floor. The parking area will be on the third floor, just below the pedestrian only podium level. An emergent issue from this is how a monolithic typology can accommodate the daily needs of people and their aspirations for future. Will the proposed podium typology be able to accommodate the current functioning of multi-scaled enterprises? 3.5 Conflicting Visions of the DRP Government Vision The projects 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 governments 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 placingFigure 3.9 Transformation process of Indian cities towards a world class city

great value on the role of this actor for financing and development; thus their opinion is highly relevant. Mukesh Mehta, one of the key private sector developers backing the development of the DRP, defends it based on the critique of the previous SRA scheme and the need of Dharavi residents to enjoy amenities such as open spaces and infrastructure. According to Mr. Mehta the adjective sustainable is the one that best describes the DRP, and at the Urban Age India Conference held in Mumbai in 2007 he summarised the DRP objectives as for rehabilitation of families and their businesses within Dharavi. Mehtas positive vision of the DRP is summarised in his statement Were 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 DRPs 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 todays redevelopment effort threatens Dharavis contributions (HOK, 2008). The current developer-oriented process puts forth an approach based on divided, discrete superparcelsDHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 025

that may disregard the generations of culture, scale and texture that define this vibrant and relevant community (ibid.). (Figure 3.10) NGOs and Research Institutions Visions We think its 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 Dharavis residents, agree that redevelopment is needed so that the dirt and the filth is replaced by decent living conditions and security of tenure, is the style and form of development chosen by the government the most appropriate for Dharavi? (Sharma, 2008).

Dharavi was allocated to us against a payment of Rs 1 lakh to a Parsi landlord. So the land on which Dharavis 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 dont want to leave. They have everything here and they are happy. But change must happen. The airport is very close, the road. For me its the best place to work but if I cannot stay Im willing to negotiate for a good place. We are preparing for this. We have to train the people. To make them have skills (Fashion industry owner in Dharavi, interviewed on 11 May 2009). The previous statements summarise the different

NGOs such as SPARC have a critical vision of the DRP, but at the same time maintain a close and highly strategic relationship with government bodies in order to function as facilitators between different institutional levels. The main concerns expressed by NGOs regarding the DRP refer to the relocation of residents, the complete lack of an inclusive process and the possible consequences of a government/market-driven process of redevelopment. The main academic institution that has collaborated with the Alliance (SPARC, NSDF, and Mahila Milan) is the Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture (KRVIA). The schools director commented that the DRP does not provide enough detail and is a tool for negotiation rather than implementation, and expressed concern that it is fundamentally driven by real estate returns (Anirudh lecture, 6 May 2009). Further concerns were shared about the excessive population density of Dharavi and the inaccurate demographic survey, which may lead to future plans based on incorrect calculations (ibid.). Residents Visions Who says Dharavi does not belong to us? Our forefathers from Saurashtra came to south Mumbai in the early 1890s. In 1933, the government allocated us land, but our entire colony was burnt down. Then some powerful Gujarati traders pressured the government and 12.50 acres (5 hectares) of land in

vision that the residents of Dharavi expressed: there are sceptical groups that have been living in Dharavi for many generations and are ready to fight if their rights are not respected, then there are other more moderate groups that do not oppose the redevelopment plan, but are aware of the dangers that it may imply and therefore they want to be part of the process. Dharavi residents are an extremely diverse group, divided by social status, religion, origin, gender and age and their multiplicity of visions reflects this; such diversity is at the heart of the difficulty of reaching a general consensus. But the diversity of Dharavi is not the only challenge towards a more inclusive redevelopment: an attempt of setting up a group of representatives for the residents of Dharavi was made on January 2009 with the creation of a consultative committee, the Advisory Board (see article on the Indianexpress, 2009). Eleven members from different backgrounds were selected and invited to make recommendations to the government on different practical and organizational aspects. The committees 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 Conclusions These 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.

REFERENCESArputham 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 wont bid directly. Published by Raghavendra Kamath the 10th March. [http://www.businessstandard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=351397] Chatterjee Gautam, 2008. We are modifying development rules to give rise to a new city. Interview by Madhurima Nandy appeared on the livemint. com on 26th August 2008. [http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/25234629/ We-are-modifying-developmentr.html] Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. Cited in Business India, February 8, 2009. p.104. Chatterjee Gautam, 2009. Role of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 8th of May. Chauhan Raju, 2007. Dharavis 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. Asias biggest slum set to turn into Indias Madison Avenue. Published in City Scape and Newsbytes on the 7th of August. [http://propertybytes.indiaproperty.com/?p=1323] Pande Hari, 2009. Redeveloping Dharavi is not viable for us: HDIL. Article appeared in Rediff online on the 10th of March. [http://www.rediff.com/ money/2009/mar/10redeveloping-dharavi-is-not-viable-for-us-hdil.html] Patel Sheela, 2005. Inside the slums. Published on the Economist the 27th of January 2005. [http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_ id=3599622] Sharma Kalpana, 2008. The pressure on slumlands. Appeared on Infochange in April 2008. [http://infochangeindia.org/200804107053/Agenda/BattlesOver-Land/The-pressure-on-slumlands.html]


04 ChapterCURRENT REALITY IN DHARAVI: ANALYSIS AND EMERGENT ISSUESContext, scope and framework for analysis Experienced impact on livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira Urban analysis of Chambda Bazaar Anticipated impact of in-situ redevelopment in Chambda Bazaar Summary of analysis and findings: moving into the Scenarios

The overall aspiration of the people toward policy is to facilitate a transformation that benefits future generations. Spatial environment, though important was a secondary concern behind maintaininga livelihoods and promoting 02 DHARAVI case of contested urbanism better educational prospects.

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

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

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


4.2 Experienced impact on livelihoods: Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira 4.2.1 Introduction to the Rajiv Indira Housing Cooperative Located on the northern edge of Dharavi Rajiv (Figure 4 .2) Indira was inaugurated as a completed project in February 2002. Fifty-four families formed the Rajiv Indira Cooperative Housing Society in March 1995 and by 1999 the project included two

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

Figure 4.2 Rajiv Indira location within Dharavi area

The Rajiv Indira-Suryodaya Cooperative Housing Society -Number of families to directly benefit: 209 -Projected total cost: 1,842,306 -Projected total cost recoveries: 2,365,552 - TDR sales (69%) Residential unit sales (21%) Commercial unit sales (9%) -Projected peak finance requirement and sources (in order of size): 1,066,055 (Citibank- baked by a 50,000 guarantee from Homeless International), fresh CLIFF and SPARC/Nirman (including recycled CLIFF) -Other resources leveraged: Land (government) and infrastructure (government)Source: Homeless International, 2008:10


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 SPARCs motivation was to illustrate that upgrading is possible in this context, and to test the Alliances hypothesis that Dharavi has an internal market for residential and commercial units (Kantha, n.d).

Figure 4.3 Bharat Janata location within Dharavi area

Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society -Site area: 2,507 square metres, each household receives a 225 square foot unit. -Number of families to directly benefit : 147 -Projected total cost : 1,020,443 -Projected total cost recoveries: 1,317,498 Residential unit sales (57%) TDR sales (37%), -Commercial unit sales (5%) -Projected peak finance requirement and sources (in order of size) 616,537 (National Housing Bank backed by a 85,353 guarantee from Homeless International), fresh CLIFF and SPARC/ Nirman (including recycled CLIFF) -Other resources leveraged: Land (government) and infrastructure (government)Source: Homeless International, 2008:10


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

4.2.3 Analysis and main findings Commercial activities While the Rajiv Indira Cooperative Housing Society has no members holding commercial permits providing entitlement to commercial space in a redevelopment project, the Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society has five members with registered commercial activities (Figure 4.4). These members lived on the second floor and ran their businesses on the ground floor; currently, four of the five rent their residential/commercial structure. Analysis found that the SRA policy creates a tradeoff for owners of both commercial units and residential space located in the same structure to choose between one or the other. In Bharat Janata, all five owners chose the former and forwent the latter. As three buildings have been already constructed while two are yet to be built, the new commercial spaces will be relocated in the ground floor of the fourth building.DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 033

An interview with one commercial establishment renter highlighted concerns about the future location inside a compound and off the road, possibly reducing business, increasing rent and requiring new residential accommodation in Dharavi or elsewhere. Findings illustrate that the SRA policy fails to recognise the multiplicity of use in existing building structures, therefore rendering itself inflexible to peoples requirements and to individuals adaptability over time.

Home based activities Home-based activities exist at different scales in Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata. Larger-scale activities, informal in nature and requiring space at least equivalent to half a flat or more, required significant adaptation to new conditions, and people showed great capacity in doing so, as illustrated in Figure 4.5.

While the households interviewed reported overall satisfaction with their conditions, the challenges for large scale home-based activities in the shift from horizontal to vertical living need to be addressed at a policy level. At present, SRA policy does not recognise the multiplicity of activities and use of space inside flats nor the flexibility of space as an issue to be addressed in order to give people the opportunity to arrange space according to their needs, instead being forced to adapt their livelihood within restricted space. A wealth of small scale home-based activities also exist in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira, including making plastic bags, hairnets, metal sponges and tailoring, as illustrated in Figure 4.6. These small scale activities form part of a wider chain of production that connects people living in buildings with the rest of Dharavi and its economic networks. Households interviewed in Bharat Janata often found it necessary to earn a supplementary income in order to pay their allotted building maintenance costs, such as the lift and water pump for example, that cost Rs. 400 per household per year, as well as individual electricity bills averaging Rs. 300 per household per month. Policy again does not recognise the multiplicity of use of space nor the flexibility as issues to be addressed regarding small scale home-based activities These small scale activities form part of a wider chain of production that connects people living in buildings with the rest of Dharavi and its economic networks. Households interviewed in Bharat Janata often found it necessary to earn a supplementary income in order to pay their allotted building maintenance costs, such as the lift and water pump for example, that cost Rs. 400 per household per year, as well as individual electricity bills averaging Rs. 300 per household per month. Policy again does not recognise the multiplicity of use of space nor the flexibility as issues to be addressed regarding small scale home-based activities.

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

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


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 peoples habits and ways of living, especially regarding communal life.

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

Fractured social networks Over fifty percent of women and teenagers interviewed experience a sense of social isolation in moving from hutment dwelling to tenement dwelling. Numerous interviewees explained how the physical layout of their hutments was more conducive to socialising, as the doors and windows faced the street and were always kept open, and interaction with others was spontaneous, frequent and dynamic. While all interviewees expressed an improvement in their quality of life, many noted that the relationship between neighbours is now weaker and lives are moreDHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 035Figure 4.7 physical layout of interaction space in the previous and the current situation and corresponding analytical diagram

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

Communal space around the buildings In both Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira the preferred communal areas were the open spaces on the ground floor interspersed between buildings. Despite the evident need by residents for such social gathering spaces, the design of these areas has been neglected in terms of both quality and functionality. Regarding the first, well constructed, good quality communal space is important to improve social cohesion among residents,Figure 4.8 The quality of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram

especially children as illustrated in Figure 4.8. Policy fails to consider the quality of such spaces around SRA buildings, an important issue as such areas change and adapt through time. In terms of functionality, people spoke of and were observed to use the space within the Bharat Janata building compound in many different ways, as illustrated in Figure 4.9. While many children play on the ground floor, in Rajiv Indira (Figure 4.10) most adults use the open corridors to socialise, perhaps reflecting the transitory nature of the first space as it is next to the edge of Dharavi and located on a main path inside. Both in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira the diversity of activities and the multiplicity of use of such communal spaces in terms of functionality of design are not recognised at the policy level.


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

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

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

Participation in design When interviewees were asked about their involvement in the design process, the majority answered positively (example in Figure 4.11). Yet as these responses were unpacked, it became clear that the concept of participation in regards to design of units was more appropriately defined as informing. In the case of Rajiv Indira, the residents were presented four (4) options by the architects before one was selected by the Society Committee. In Bharat Janata, only one unit option was provided. Virtually all the residents interviewed regard the architect as expert and therefore fail to recognize their potential voice in the design process. The majority of the women spoken to had little or no direct knowledge of the process, having been passively informed of meeting results by their husbands. While recognizing the contributions and mobilizing efforts of the Alliance, it is this disregard for particular attention to spatial use and diversity of residents that

emerges as a key critique and finding of our analysis. In additional interviews with members of SPARC it was made clear that primary concern in these pilot projects was re-housing citizens. Spatial design was treated with a standard, acceptable approach by local architects that were appointed for their experience and sensibility to the area and situation. While recognizing the learning curve involved in pilot projects, especially those undertaken by a grassroots initiative, we assert that greater attention be given to spatial needs that arise from multiplicity of use. The idea of participation is deep with subjective situational interpretations. Re-housing people may have been the primary objective of SPARC in these cases, though when dealing with the physical construction of a building, the design and impact it has on social progress and commercial sustainability, must not be relegated. On a wider scale, overall analysis illustrates that SRA policy fails to consider the true involvement of people in the design process, a fundamental component used to identify the diversity of requirements within the community. The lack of appropriate inclusion into the design process renders an inflexible policy and thus a holistically inappropriate provision of space. An emerging consequence seen in the two case studies and other SRA projects is that people are forced to continuously adapt a standardized space to meet their family needs and livelihoods.

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

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

4.3 Urban analysis of Chambda Baazar Chambda Bazaar, strategically located at the center of Dharavi, has been the locus of growth of commercial clusters for over a century, as illustrated in (Figure 4.12a,b,c). At present the informality and the strategic location of the district offers flexibility of space and livelihoods, attracting migrant populations of different regions, cultures and religions. A unique character district with a diverse mix of livelihoods functioning at different scales of the business network and having varying spatial demands, the urban analysis unpacks issues of urban density, land use and its relationship to livelihoods.


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 Dharavis 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. TheFigure 4.12a Dharavi development in 1933 Bombay Guide Map Including Parts of Salsette: Map by Surveyor General of India, showing further increased built form.

Density and Land use: Chambda Bazaar

currently has a high residential tenement density of 706 per hectare (KRVIA, 2007), with both purely residential high rise clusters in the middle to home based commercial working units spread all over (Figure 4.14). The district, 8,478 square metres bounded by three main peripheral

Figure 4.12b Dharavi development in 1969 Bombay Guide Map: Map by Surveyor General of India, showing High Density built form in some

Figure 4.13 Major road linkages throughout Dharavi

Figure 4.12c Dharavi development in 2008 Present Situation: Dharavi at present with Chambda Bazaar showing the Highest density of built form.

Figure 4.14 Land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar


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 Baazar4.4.1 Commercial activity A diverse spectrum of commercial activities was encountered in Chambda Baazar, ranging from large scale bakeries to small scale candy store owners. Established enterprises were mostly related to jewellery making, leather goods, garments and baked goods. Small scale commercial activities were largely retail shops that sometimes run small production units in or outside a residence contributing to a larger chain of production (Figure 4.16). Otherwise they cater to the local market and are dependent on customers inside Dharavi. The size of the enterprise often depends on both the trade and the level of networks in which they are situated. The location of the business was dependent upon the local entrepreneurs who preferred working in clusters according to their regional and/or religious background. The overall aspiration of the commercial enterprise owners was to retain their existing flow of goods and network of customers.

The tanned leather from Chennai is processed within Dharavi.

Final product of leather ( leather jackets) is sold Outside of Dharavi

The tanned leather from Chennai is processed within Dharavi.

Customer networks throughout India

Figure 4.16 Production chain at various geographical scales


small scale candy shop

medium scale embroidery shop

large scale bakery

Figure 4.17 Various scales of commercial enterprise

Diversity of commercial activities and multiplicity of space Commercial activities within Chambda Baazar have thrived because of their flexibility, diversity, adaptability and multiplicity in the present informal scenario. Enterprises researched illustrate how, over generations, small to medium scale businesses such as gem and jewellery makers have leveraged their locational advantage and responded to local demand while, large scale bakery owners, for example, have clustered and diversified their commercial activities (Figure 4.17). Such cases demonstrate the ability of individuals driving commercial activities, in terms of financial, physical and human resources, to adapt, diversify and transform their enterprises in order to secure future benefits. Yet the SRA policy and the DRP does not recognise the potential financial power of these enterprises to pay for the multiple spatial requirements necessary to support their diverse economic network to secure their business in the future. 042 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

Excluded users of space Official documents and interviews made evident the fact that the Dharavi Redevelopment Plan (DRP) does not recognise the rights of renters, transient tenants nor the multiplicity of uses of one structure by families or enterprises. At present a large section of the commercial activities in Chambda Baazar are reliant on migrant workers who work for free or nominal remuneration, such as the provision of food and shelter. Multiple business owners living within Dharavi often give dormitory spaces for these transient workers the within their commercial clusters (Figure 4.18). Most single enterprise owners are reliant on skilled workers and provide them with food as well as shelter in close vicinity to the shop. The workers are dependent on public amenities provided within the cluster. Such flexible conditions of work-live and the adaptations owners have made through time to address their labourers needs is not addressed in SRA policy.

Live and wo

Documents

Dharavi: a case of contested urbanism