We had a discussion in Theory of Design class the other day about something completely off the syllabus, but something really interesting atleast to me. The professor (sounds so weird to call the guy who takes the class, but still...) was wondering if any of us were even asking the question whether the kind of re-development we're doing in Dharavi with our 40 different projects was really the kind needed. For the uninitiated, the college, the Design Cell and the 4th year studio is working on a plan (the "people's alternative" as every presentation calls it) for the redevelopment of Dharavi in opposition to a plan made by a developer. And ironically, the guy who asks this question is also the guy who's heading the Design Cell in this project.
The point is that every time we think of slum redevelopment, we see it simply as providing a building with a certain number of floors that house a certain number of slum families, the overall emphasis being on providing a larger house with a toilet and bathroom. As one of my classmates was kind enough to point out 'We're giving them closed services which is a boon for them'. All the buildings look like any building housing the middle class. Which is natural, since we are all from a closeted middle class background with all the darkness in life stowed away from us and nothing makes us feel more safer and secure than 'cleaning up' some messy parts of the city. And it blends in with one of the objectives of the studio which is to find a way to improve the quality of life of the residents of Dharavi.
However what i find amiss in all our projects (im not excluding myself here too) are objectives 2 and 3 of the studio: Retaining existing community patterns; and Retaining existing economic activity.
Let me start with objective 3: Retaining existing economic activity. Dharavi is a hotbed of indutrial activity and it was surprising to see that happening in a place constantly referred to as a black hole. Although the label on your jeans says Levi's or you feel comfy that your shirt is from Globus, we've seen both being manufactured in one of the close to 1,00,000 tenements in the area. Unfortunately, a lot of this industrial activity is illegal, like tanning of leather. A lot of the industries operate while flouting many of the ineffective labour laws. People work in a tenement from 7 in the morning until 7 in the evening when residents of the tenement come home from their workplace in another part of the clum. In effect, the industry in the area works only because the slum is invisible to the powers that be. As one leather exporter who works out of a tenement mentioned, it is impossible for him to run a business outside of Dharavi, with a particular number of holidays, limited shifts, strikes, labour laws etc. This guy makes enough profits and contributes so much of it as tax to the Government, a fact he mentions very proudly. He hires enough employees to have trouble with a union and deal with a holiday for every time a national leader decides to die. His export clients include Versace and Gucci, none of whom care where their product comes from.
The fact that most redevelopment schemes miss out on is the legal status of these industries. Most of them dwell and succeed in the darkness, the ostracisation of the slum from society, the unwillingness of the law to eneter such a space. Legality by providing a tenement or an industrial gala would be suicide. No one knows exactly how many people live in these slums, but every one agrees most work within Dharavi itself. How many industries can be shut down and how many jobs can be lost before we realise we cannot retain existing economic activity with a gentrified redevelopment scheme?
Objective #2: Existing community patterns. i do not need to tell anybody that there is a difference in a 7-storey building housing a community and a slum sprawl housing the same. The relationship that develops on a horizontal plane cannot be replicated on a vertical one. So where does the question of providing existing community patterns to remain occur? Herding one community into one building does not mean one has managed to retain community patterns.
If someone has read the argument on objective #3 and wonders if it is unfair to the 'legitimate' businesses in the city, i would say i agree with that. But the point here is to question the objectives themselves and not come up with newer ones. If concern about legitimate businesses is an objective then there can be another post about that. Similarly if the objective is to free up land for the city then redevelopment is probably a good way of achieving it.
i feel that objectives 2&3 are extremely crucial and volatile. Any kind of ambitious plan to redevelop would invariably lead to a corruption of these objectives. In such a case maybe objective #1 should be the only objective that allows some kind of intervention, some kind of intervention that achieves an upgradation of the standard of living but with minimal scarring on the fabric of the slum. Something that allows the slum to retain its character as that part of the city that fell through the cracks. i am not romanticising the slum here, but merely making a point that every city needs its "black hole", just like every human being has some bad habits. If the concern is for the inhabitants of the black hole, then an insert that addresses JUST that concern is absolutely crucial. Trying to eliminate the darkness in a city would simply supplant the darkness. If redevelopment does occur, most of these industries and the people will move to the fringes of the city, until gentrification catches up with that too, and then another black hole and then another....
i may not be aware of a clear solution, but some examples N.P. quoted and some studies and experiments carried out in Brazil and Indonesia may provide the answer. http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/sponsor/ActionPlan.pdf has an interesting charter spelling out some of these things. Maybe this argument will take me nowhere as passing 4th year Design becomes more important than standing up for what i think. But i hope this brings out a better discussion than the one in TOD class, which finally ended up discussing 'Let's just throw out these wretched people who've taken our land and live on our taxes.'
That's all.
3 comments:
so wud objectives 2 & 3 even find a mention in th 4th yr jury or wudnt it .. ignorance for th sake of convinience?? not even ignorance..dumbness rather ?? whens th final jury ??
i am not romanticising the slum here, but merely making a point that every city needs its "black hole", just like every human being has some bad habits... doesnt this sort of contradict what u were trying to bring out through objective no.2 and 3., that looking at dharavi merely as a black hole is problematic.. that looking at it simply as a problem to be solved is itself a problem?
the pt was not to ask whether there is a problem or not but merely to question if the current model of redevelopment is the suitable one given the objectives we've set up for ourself. and the fact tat im talkin about minimal intervention is for the reason u just mentioned: that not every thing is a problem to be solved. you've misunderstood the reference to the black hole.
tapan: these concerns are obviously informing our designs, but i wonder how much of a difference they'll make when the basis of objective 2 & 3 (the illegality of most activities) is being contradicted by converting the whole settlement into a 'clean' settlement. tat was the point of looking at slum upgradation, if you see the pdf file ull realise how different both models are.
Post a Comment