Matias Echanove / matias@urbanology.org: Tokyo - June 28, 2007 The Tokyo Model of Urban Development Memo concerning the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) to the attention of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). An urban setting that allows for different economic activities to have a legitimate space – big businesses, small enterprises, small home-based manufacturing and processing units and informal economic activities. In many areas, such a setting allows for a co-existence of residential and work spaces. The Tokyo model is also characterized by locally initiated residential and commercial development, alongside centralized infrastructure planning – involving roads, water-supply and drainage. 1. Overview: From Tokyo slum to Tokyo future city a. Destruction & Reconstruction: • After the Second World War, half of Tokyo was destroyed (equivalent to New York City area). • However, pressing economic redevelopment & need of shelter didn't allow central planners to

create the new/modern city that they had planned. • Thus, the pre-war layout served as the basis for reconstruction: In other words, the city was

rebuilt on its ruins. • The government focused on infrastructure re-development to support the economy. • The residential reconstruction was left to local actors. • Slum-type housing, that evolved from village habitats, dominated most areas until 1960s. • Interestingly, the slum-type urban typology and street patterns exist even in present-day

residential neighborhoods. (The urban typology of most residential neighborhoods in Tokyo is similar to that of Dharavi)

Images: A slum-typology predominates the urbanism of residential neighborhoods in Tokyo.

b. A collection of villages: • In Tokyo, small lots of farming land were gradually converted to

residential/commercial/industrial activities – (like the Koli village in Dharavi). • At the time of great urban growth, planning intervention from the government in residential

neighborhoods was mainly limited to modern water supply and railway transport system. (In Dharavi, there was little, if any, investment done in these matters).

• In Tokyo, traditional urban development & management strategies are still practiced at the

neighborhood level. • There is a tradition of local autonomy and self-reliance. The “Chonaikai”, literally the

association from within the neighborhood (equivalent of the Indian Mohalla), is central to neighborhood life and organization in Japan. This type of organization, which is spatially based, rather than activity or cause based, is uniquely Asian. (In Dharavi too there are many local organizations that are involved in day-to-day relief and support activities).

• Residential neighborhoods of Tokyo exult a "village-like quality replete with song birds and

small alleys, (the roji), never appears to be far from even the city’s most important roadways and intersections.” (Rowe 2005). (Even among the high-density squalor of Dharavi you can see the traces of village like structures. In fact these exist in many parts of Mumbai – including Khotachiwadi).

c. The Anko-Gawa model: soft-core, hard-edge.

Images: From left to right, from the roji (commercial lane) to the tori (small community street). A pattern similar to that of Dharavi.

• The Japanese urban fabric is often composed of a "soft" residential core, characterized by low-

rise and densely built houses, surrounded by a "hard" shell of taller and larger structures along wide roads or railways. (In Mumbai too, many neighbourhoods – even middle-class ones show low-rise high-density patterns. Charles Correa has talked about this in the context of Khotachiwadi, Matharpakhadi and other old Mumbai neighbourhoods).

• Within the residential core the same soft-core, hard-edge pattern is repeated on a smaller scale (almost in a fractal-way).

• The neighborhood life is organized along the long lane (roji), where small shops and restaurants can be found. (Dharavi too shows this pattern).

• These lanes can barely be accessed by cars. They are by and large pedestrian (Like many Mumbai slums).

• The lanes are crossed by smaller streets (tori) leading to groups of houses. • The smaller streets are not purely public nor private, but are used exclusively by people

residing alongside. (again the same pattern can be found in Dharavi, where very narrow streets lead to a cluster of houses around a common open space (promoting to strong neighborhood ties)).

d. Mixed-use zoning • Zoning in Japan is (by default) mixed-use, despite some attempts by central planners to

organize the city along functional lines. (This is because like many Asian cities, including in India, a large part of the populations live and work in their own localities).

• Many positive outcomes mixed-use have been acknowledged - such as safety and continuing

liveliness of central city areas. (This is clearly the case in Dharavi as well as many writers – including Kalpana Sharma in ‘Re-discovering Dharavi’ – have pointed out).

• In spite of being the largest metropolitan area in the world (32 million people), Tokyo is also one

of the safest city. (And in spite of being the largest slum in Asia, Dharavi is safe to walk through, even for an outsider, unlike most South American slums or Western ghettos).

• Mixed use in residential neighborhoods promotes local commercial activity. Small scale

industrial activity, such as printing, wood work, textile manufacturing, can been seen in Tokyo's neighborhoods. (In Dharavi, as many study reports (KRVIA) have shown, we too find a range of similar activities).

• This leniency towards mixed-use has permitted to preserve small-scale family type businesses

in one of the most advanced economy in the world. (Preserving these types of businesses also means preserving traditions and culture. Small-scale, family-type businesses largely predominate in Dharavi, operating mostly from or near to residential spaces).

• This also avoids a high degree of residential segregation along income lines as one finds in the

US. (This mixed form in which rich hand poor live next to each other is also one of the main characteristics of Mumbai’s urban fabric, it should not be overlooked as an important way of maintaining some degree of social cohesion).

e. A recent case study: rebuilding Kobe after the 1995 earthquake • Joint housing:

o Collective use of land value for reconstruction help to avoid displacement. o City subsidized design cost and common areas.

• Land readjustment: o Consolidate property rights and rearrange land parcels. o Buy out those who want to leave and use their land. o Provides for clustering allowing construction of infrastructure and creation of public spaces.

• Renter's rights: Renters retain a property right during the readjustment/reconstruction process.

• Government funded community planners: o Assist residents in planning and financing construction. o Help maintain a sense of community among displaced residents. o Provided an opportunity to develop creative strategies for neighborhood improvement. o Provided communication links between residents and the government.

2. Lessons for Dharavi

1. We have to look at Dharavi from the point of view of the city as a whole. We have seen how slums have reproduced themselves on a large scale all over the city – especially from the eighties onwards - and are not confined to Dharavi. The density level in Dharavi is in all likelihood one of the highest in the world. Any viable plan to cross subsidize new housing for the poor would mean that anything between 1 and 2 lakhs of the current residents (amongst the most vulnerable such new comers, renters, young people, large families, etc) would be forced out and cut from their source of livelihood. The will create Mumbai’s new slums. The DRP would therefore be responsible for the emergence of slums in the city.

2. The Tokyo model suggests that it is possible to upgrade Dharavi in situ, by focusing on

infrastructure development and relying on community self-determination. This model is the most sustainable at the level of the city since it will minimize the “slum spill-over effect” that the current plan would generate (i.e.: creating new slum pockets elsewhere in the city). The Tokyo case suggests that a master plan is needed for infrastructure development (roads, water, electricity, sewage), but that local development would be better done at the local level of existing communities and nagars.

3. The first step towards a sound plan for Dharavi is a Dharavi-wide survey and enumeration

by an independent NGO, which has the trust of the residents, such as SPARC for instance. This survey would be the basis for the self-recognition of existing communities and nagar boundaries by residents themselves. Once this is mapped out, independent planners could help communities i) determine themselves according to the Dharavi-wide infrastructure plan, ii) make a local plan according to their specific needs, iii) and maintain the connection between local residents and the SRA.

4. To Western observers used to rationally, top-down planned cities, Tokyo’s first appears as

an incoherent city, an urban mess. However, this Western centric vision fails to acknowledge the special character of Tokyo as a “lived” city, which is malleable, changing, heteroclite, and temporary. The adaptability and softness of Tokyo, together with its mixed-use zoning is what makes it highly functional at the individual and collective levels. Despite being over twice as large as New York in terms of population, the metropolitan area of Tokyo is incomparably better organized and sustainable both ecologically and socially. Dharavi, shares many characteristics with Tokyo. A tabula raza approach consisting of destroying everything that was built, in plus of being an economic and cultural disaster for Dharavi and Mumbai would also be a fundamentally wrong from an urban development perspective. As hard as it is to conceive for outsiders, in urban terms, Dharavi is not a mess, but quite on the contrary a highly sophisticated and efficient urban organism.

5. The formalization of the situation in Dharavi could generate revenue to the government in

the forms of taxes and service charge. Currently Dharavi residents who have access to water, through informal pipeline have to pay high fees to “thug plumbers” for bad service and polluted water. Most people would be happy paying the government for good service instead.

6. The government has the duty of protecting Dharavi residents, as well as other Mumbaikars

who will be affected by the spill over effects of the plan from the vested interests of the builder lobby who are not thinking in a holistic urban manner and are putting their own interest above the interest of the people who’s life will be affected.

Top image: Photomontage, Dharavi on the left, Tokyo on the right. Bottom image: Photomontage: Tokyo on the left and center, Dharavi on the right. The urban typology is strickingly similar. This tells as much about the history of Tokyo as a slum as about the potential of Dharavi if it is allowed to develop incrementally.

(With inputs from Rahul Srivastava, Mumbai).