Participants

May 2009

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

Development Planning Unit
University College London

Members of Faculty Nationality

Dr. Camillo Boano Italy

Isis P Nuñez Ferrera Honduras

Students

Mike Wai-Hou Chan Hong Kong

Laura Colloridi Italy
Debeshi Chakraborty India
Barbara Dovarch Italy
Melissa Garcia Lamarca Canada
William Hunter United States of America
Su-Eun Jung South Korea
Benjamin Leclair-Paquet Canada
Xiaolu Li China
Phirany Lim United States of America
Gynna Millan Franco Colombia
Kelvin Naidoo South Africa
Hye-Joo Park Korea
Nota Syrrothanasi Greece
Pooja Varma India
Andrew Wade United States of America
Participants
Table of Contents
Image index
Acronyms
Acknowledgements
Executive summary

01 Chapter
Introduction 006
04 Chapter
1.1 Locating Mumbai: A World Class City? Current Reality in Dharavi:
1.2 Dharavi: The Heart of Contested Urbanism Analysis and Emerging Issues 028
1.3 Terms of Reference
1.4 Theoretical Framework
4.1 Context, Scope and Framework for Analysis
1.5 Vision
4.2 Experienced Impact on Livelihoods: Bharat Janata
and Rajiv Indira
4.3 Urban Analysis of Chambra Baazar
02 Chapter 4.4 Anticipated Impact of In-Situ Redevelopment in
Methodology 013 Chambra Baazar
4.5 Summary of Analysis and Finding: Moving into the
Scenarios
2.1 The Process
2.2 Asumptions and Limitations

05 Chapter
03 Chapter Bridging the Gap :
Towards the Dharavi Redevelopment Rationale for the Scenarios 048
Project? 018

3.1 Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums

06 Chapter
3.2 Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project The Scenarios 078
3.3 Policy Comparisons and Critique
3.4 Physical Proposals and Critiques 6.1 Scenario 1: Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Plan
3.5 Contested Visions of the DRP 6.2 Scenario 2: BUDD Proposal: Towards an Alternative
3.6 Conclusions Vision
IMAGE INDEX

01 Chapter
1.1 map of Greater Mumbai
1.2 map of Dharavi
1.3 photo of DRP proposal sketch from Mumbai Mirror
1.4 images of negotiating the change from hutment dweller to tenement dweller
1.5 diagram of actor pressures (adapted from Pieterse 2003)

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

04 Chapter
4.1 example analysis diagram- issue criteria vs core analytical concepts
4.2 Map showing Rajiv Indira location within Dharavi area
4.3 Map showing Bharat Janata location within Dharavi area
4.4 Images showing commercial activity scenes with current plan location and corresponding analytical
diagram
4.5 Images showing larger-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram.
4.6 Images showing small-scale home-based activities investigated and corresponding analytical diagram.
4.7 Images showing the physical layout of interaction space in the previous and the current situation and corre-
sponding analytical diagram
4.8 Images showing the quality of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) and corresponding an-
alytical diagram
4.9 Images showing the use of communal space around the building (Bharat Janata) with current plan l o c a t i o n
and corresponding analytical diagram
4.10 Images showing the use of communal space around the building (Rajiv Indira) with current plan location
and corresponding analytical diagram
4.11 Interview photos (with the community leader of Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram
surrounding the question of participation in design
4.12a map showing Dharavi development in 1933
4.12b map showing Dharavi development in 1969
4.12c map showing Dharavi development in 2008
4.13 major road linkages throughout Dharavi
4.14 land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar
4.15a photos showing use of open space
4.15b sketch illustrating activities around shared open space
4.16 diagram showing production chain at various geographical scales
4.17a photos showing various scales of commercial enterprise
4.17b analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (enterprise activity)
4.18a photo showing live/work space (migrant workers)
4.18b analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (live/work tenements)
4.19a photos of home-based activities (and their location) within Chambda Bazaar (map)
4.20a interview photos- different scale home-based commercial activities
4.20b analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (home-based work)
4.21a photos showing diversity of open space- commercial/residential
4.21b analytical diagrams- experienced reality vs. anticipated impact (diverse spatial use)

05 Chapter
5.1 diagram of setting the scenario

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

Community-Led Infrastructure Financing Facility CLIFF

Dharavi Redevelopment Project DRP
Expoert Advisory Committee EAC
Floor Space Index FSI
Government of Maharashtra GoM
Housing Development & Infrastructure Limited HDIL
Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture KRVIA
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai MCGM
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority MHADA
Mumbai Municipal Corporation MMC
Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority MMRDA
National Slum Dwellers Federation NSDF
Slum Rehabilitation Authority SRA
Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres SPARC
Transferable Development Rights 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 dur-
ing our stay in Mumbai. The following people have been
particularly supportive of this work: Mrs. Sheela Patel,
Director of SPARC; Mr. Sundar Burra, Advisor to SPARC;
Aseena Viccajee, Systems Manager of SPARC and SSNS;
Mr. Anirudh Paul, Director of KRVIA and Ms. Benita Me-
nezes of KRVIA.
Furthermore, we would like to thank several people
who contributed to this work through their presenta-
tions and the meetings we had with them: Mr. A. Jockin,
President of National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF);
Mr. Gautam Chatterjee, Vice President and Chief Execu-
tive Officer of MHADA, and Officer on Special Duty for
the Dharavi Redevelopment Project; Mr. Milind Mhaiskar,
Project Director (MUTP) and Metropolitan Commission-
er of MMRDA; Mr. U.P.S. Madan, Project Manager of the
Mumbai Transformation Support Unit; Mr. S.K. Joshi Ad-
visor to SPARC; Ms. Kalpana Sharma, author and jour-
nalist; Ms. Neera Adarkar, architect and activist and P.K.
Das, architect and activist.
Many thanks go to the women of Mahila Milan, es-
pecially Prema, our facilitators from SPARC, namely Lo-
pez ,Lopez, Sharmila and Katia, and our KRVIA contacts,
specifically Neelima, Rutwick, Amruyta and Siddhartha,
as well as Rochit, who all went to great lengths to facili-
tate our fieldwork. Your help in navigating Dharavi was
invaluable.
Additionally we would like to thank all our tutors
at the Development Planning Unit, University College
London, for their guidance throughout this academic
year, with special reference to Dr. Camillo Boano, Direc-
tor of the MSc in Building and Urban Design in Develop-
ment course, for his constant encouragement, support
and guidance. We would also like to thank the BUDD
Course Coordinator Isis P Nunez Ferrera for her fruitful
discussions, suggestions and constructive critiques.
Finally, we would like to express our deep grati-
tude to the people of Dharavi, who were always eager
to open their houses and shops, sharing with us their
aspirations and demonstrating the strength of their
community.
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.
002 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Key Findings
The Dharavi Redevelopment Project
In order to satisfy Mumbai’s intent to become a
‘World Class City’, the municipal government has
established objectives that are to be met through a
series of major urban infrastructure and redevelopment
projects, hand in hand with a drive towards the vision
of a ‘slum free’ city. Through a state facilitated Public-
Private Partnership (PPP), the architect Mukesh Mehta
and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development
Authority (MHADA) have developed the DRP, which is
in essence a tabula-rasa redevelopment strategy for
the entire territory of Dharavi.
Its key characteristics are:
• Dividing Dharavi into five sectors, to be
redeveloped by five developers;
• Increasing density by setting a Floor
Space Index (FSI) of four as a regulatory tool,
as compared to two and a half in the rest of
Mumbai;
• Adopting a new singular typology solution
consisting of a three-storey podium with high-
rise building above.
• Financing through cross subsidisation and
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.
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 people’s requirements and
individuals’ adaptability through time.
• While the majority of people in Dharavi
have an exceptional ability to adapt to both new
social and physical conditions, the SRA policy
does not recognise the multiplicity of activities
and use of space for home-based activities
inside flats, nor does it recognise the flexibility
of space as an issue requiring attention.
• Social cohesion was found to be negatively
affected in high-rise rehabilitation projects,
especially among women and children. The
importance of the exterior/public environment
in terms of providing space for socialising is not
recognised in policy, in terms of multiplicity of
functions nor necessary quality of space.
• SRA policy does not consider people’s
involvement in the building design process,
fundamental to identify people’s multiplicity of
use of space and diversity of requirements.
Anticipated impacts in Chambda Bazaar
• Commercial activities have thrived because
of their flexibility, diversity, adaptability and
multiplicity in the present informal situation,
often connected to larger chains of production in
India and internationally. Such characteristics are
not given due recognition in policy.
• Many commercial activities are dependent
upon migrant workers who work for free or
nominal compensation within commercial
clusters; such flexible conditions of work-live
spaces and the adaptations that owners have
made through time to address labourers’ needs
are not addressed in SRA policy.
• Small-scale home-based activities often form
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) organised around
open spaces use this exterior domain to socialise
with neighbours and to operate small-scale
businesses.
• Exterior spaces in organic clusters with
minimal open spaces were generally used only to
carry out household chores.
• Units were often built incrementally,
by adding storeys to the ground level to
accommodate changing needs.
• Incremental building accounts for the
diversity of the urban environment, and the
synthesis of different storey buildings in close
proximity.
• Manufacturing clusters requiring greater
accessibility were strategically located along
primary and secondary local roads.
004 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
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.
 This plural approach to housing provision looks Conclusions
to be more adaptive and enabling to people through The report outlines the importance of addressing the
the process of transformation, by acknowledging the diversity of needs and aspirations within Dharavi and
existing diversity in capacity and needs within the Mumbai at an institutional level by allocating suitable
community. It recognises the potential of existing room for manoeuvre within a relevant and responsive
households to participate more equitably in the policy framework. While criticising the DRP for not being
process. reflectively informed, nor seemingly acknowledging
the diversity present at multiple levels within Dharavi,
The Second Scenario underlines the multiplicity the report seeks to demonstrate means by which such
and diversity of the citizens of Dharavi, and thus the action can be taken.
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:
• Integrate migrants;
• Acknowledge the role of the different
morphological forms in Dharavi;
• Provide a range of architectural options,
each adapted to specific conditions of
residents;
• Recognise the historical quarters and
the emotional attachment of citizens to such
spaces;
• Incorporate, with greater integrity,
involvement of the citizens of Dharavi in the
process of transformation.

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 005

006 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
 01 Chapter
INTRODUCTION
Locating Mumbai: a World Class City?
Dharavi: the Heart of Contested Urbanism
Terms of Reference
Theoretical Framework
Vision

This case of contested urbanism highlights land values and built densities at the core of the
argument over Mumbai’s future, accentuating inequalities and driving the contest over space.
The ingrained behaviour of the actors involved and their inter-relationships accentuate this
conflictive nature.
1.1 Locating Mumbai: a World Class City?
Mumbai is a locus of economic activity that attracts
both an influx of global capital as well as migrants
drawn from across the country in search of opportunity.
While the former forges avenues connecting Mumbai
into the global network of ‘world-class’ cities, the latter
Mumbai
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: Dharavi

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

pressure on land, resulting in over half the population of
the cityresiding in informal settlements or ‘slums’ (Patel,
D’Cruz and Burra, 2003: 160). Figure 1.1 Greater Mumbai
The economic liberalisation of India in the early
1990s marked a shift in priorities and the beginning
of Mumbai’s aspirations toward an outward looking,
ambitious vision of global competition. This was
Bandra-Kurla Complex
manifested by the global consulting firm McKinsey & (BKC)

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

elite citizen group seeking to make the city a better place
to live, work and invest in and aiming to serve the city
with the best that private business can offer. This vision,
endorsed and presently pursued by the municipal and
state government, simply stated means that “if Mumbai
has to be a World Class city then the slums have to go,
for which strong and urgent steps need to be taken. Any
encroachment of public property cannot be tolerated
and must be dealt with according to the rule of law.”
(Mahadevia and Narayanan, 1999: 2)
1.2 Dharavi: the Heart of Contested Urbanism
Popularly known as Asia’s largest slum, Dharavi is
characterised by its strategic location in the centre of
Mumbai (Figure 1.2), and thus finds itself at the heart of
a challenging, highly contested debate over the future
of the city and its development process.
Dharavi has evolved in this context from a small fishing
village, whose genesis lies in the policy of demolition
and relocation the city followed for many years, where
squatters were pushed off valuable land in south
Mumbai and moved onto this swampy, unhygienic area
(Sharma, 2000: 24). Jockin, the leader of NSDF, notes that
‘the poor are used as bulldozers to fill swamps, even out
the land, make it habitable and just after this happens
the city moves in and they are moved out – to another
uninhabitable plot of land’ (ibid.: 19). As Mumbai’s
Dharavi
Figure 1.2 Dharavi
development pushed northwards, Dharavi became its
geographical centre. Currently it is located between
inner-city districts and the financial centre Bandra-
Kurla Complex, near Chhatrapati Shivaji International
Airport. Strong transportation connections link the
periphery of Dharavi to Mumbai, helping to make
Dharavi a focal area for development.
This case of contested urbanism highlights land
values and built densities at the core of the argument
over Mumbai’s future, accentuating inequalities
and driving the contest over space. The ingrained
behaviour of the actors involved and their complex
inter-relationships accentuate this conflictive nature.
Significant government and market pressure towards
becoming a world-class city and thus wiping out
‘slums’ push against the struggle for a bottom-up,
inclusive development process by NGO groups such
as SPARC, grassroots organisations including Mahila
Milan and the NSDF and heterogeneous citizen groups
in Dharavi. These latter groups are diverse in nature,
and importantly in strategies and tactics, where groups

008 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

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 A Snapshot of Dharavi
to the DRP, the one avenue for civil society engagement - Geographic area: 239 hectares
in the Project, has the complex task of mediating these - Number of nagars (neighbourhoods): over 80
conflicting demands towards its goals of making the - Population size: Between 700,000 and 1 million
redevelopment process ‘more humane’. people
- Institutions: 27 temples, 11 mosques, 6 churches,
Dharavi thus demands a shift in perspective to 3 primary/secondary schools
recognise its diverse and conflictive nature both within - Economic activity: Annual turnover of business
its boundaries and in relation to Mumbai as a whole. is estimated at £350 million
There is a need for the production of policies and space - 23% of the population is employed in small scale
to inform each other in a mutually supportive fashion industries
through the recognition of livelihood assets. At an - 70-80% of Dharavi’s workforce also reside there
institutional level, it is important that the diversity of
needs and aspirations within Dharavi and Mumbai be (Sources: BBC, 2006; Sharma, 2000; Chatterjee interview, 2009)
addressed by allocating suitable room for manoeuvre
within a relevant and responsive policy framework.
While the challenges of scaling-up development are
recognised, readjusting the conceptual relationship
between a hutment dweller and a tenement dweller
as well as the physical translation of re-housing
and its livelihood impacts should be given primary
consideration in future redevelopment plans.
Implementing appropriate and relevant processes
within a tightly linked and responsive spatial-political
landscape creates a critical path where transformative
intentions can be realised and sustained.

Dharavi’s treatment by various government

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

DHARAVI a acase
DHARAVI caseofof contested
contestedurbanism 009
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 and design for commercial
structures
b.Livelihoods and design for home-based
economic activities infrastructure
3. To explore with the different actors involved
(household members and community groups, NGOs, and
relevant government and private sector organizations)
proposals which will strengthen the in-situ development
in Dharavi in the future in a manner which will contribute
to their transformative intentions
1.4 Theoretical 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
Project’s (DRP) transformative intentions. This clarification
positions our outlook on the situation in relation to that
of established actors and guides our proposals aimed at
achieving such transformation.
Dharavi is located in a web of contested urbanism
through a perception of the production of space as an
inherently conflictual process, where various forms of
injustice are not only manifested, but produced and
reproduced (Dikeç, 2001: 1788).
Power in the redevelopment process is seen, through
a Foucaultian lens, as underlying all social relations,
being fluid in nature and having multiple sources. This
010 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
fragmented and unevenly distributed power prioritises
the vision of some actors over others. Transformation
is thus understood as a process that occurs as dominant
and resistant forces converge within a context of
cooperative conflict. This fundamentally alters the
production of space and policy, thus enabling the
enhancement of livelihoods through time. The concept
of livelihoods is understood as people, their capacity
and means of living, demonstrated by the confluence
of five distinct types of capital: human, social, physical,
financial, and natural (Chambers and Conway, 1991).
The production of space and policy is thus deemed
to be appropriate and relevant when the criteria of
diversity, adaptability, flexibility, and multiplicity are
present, and the critical integration of these criteria is
a prerequisite for sustaining a transformative process.
Within Dharavi, a linked spatial-political landscape,
transformation needs to elevate the negative notion of
hutment dwellers to recognised citizens as tenement
dwellers, and be facilitated by appropriate and relevant
participatory processes.
Cooperative conflict is a situation where the
inherent reality of conflict is recognised and all parties
work together in this contested context to reach an
agreed point that is constantly reconstructed and
renegotiated (Levy, 2007: 6). Currently a multiplicity of
conflicting forces, visions, identities and power relations
exist within Dharavi, where urban change is driven
by central dominant forces (DRP, MHADA, etc.) and
countered by peripheral resistant forces (the citizens of
Dharavi, SPARC, NSDF, etc.) that struggle for inclusion in
the process, with the latter’s claims negotiated by the
Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP. Some actors have
adopted strategies for inclusion and influence in this
process by acting as a collective, as is the case with the
Alliance of SPARC, NSDF and Mahila Milan, the first two
represented on the Expert Advisory Panel. An identified
platform for congruence is the productive capacity of
Dharavi, providing an opportunity for cooperation
within this contested environment. The desired result is
that the aspirations and assets of the citizens of Dharavi
become valued and included as integral parts of the
urban network at multiple scales. ‘Citizen’ is explicitly
used here as a political term to acknowledge a political
community, as well as the rights, obligations and claims
to which the state must be accountable (Friedmann and
Douglass, 1998: 1).
 The four criteria used as a basis for assessment
in our analysis and used as the drivers of our
proposals are:
Diversity:
The plurality of identity and perception,
both individual and collective, related to
social, economic and spatial networks
Adaptability:
The capacity to shape an ideological or
strategic response within an existing
constrictive framework
Flexibility:
A fluid, versatile quality that effectively
addresses divergent desires and
priorities
Multiplicity:
The amplification, fragmentation, and
integration of formative processes in
order to offer suitable solutions for
different requirements
These primary criteria seek to ensure the
appropriate and relevant production of space
and policy. The critical integration of these
criteria is a prerequisite for sustaining a desirable
transformative process.
1.5 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)
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 011
 References

BBC news channel, 2006. Life in a slum. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/

spl/hi/world/06/dharavi_slum/html/dharavi_slum_intro.stm]

Chambers R., Conway G., 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical

concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies,
Brighton.

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

of May 2009.

Dikeç Mustafa, 2001. Justice and the spatial imagination. Environment

and Planning A. [http://www.envplan.com]

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

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

Mahadevia D., Narayanan H., 1999. Shanghaing Mumbai – Politics of

Evictions and Resistance in Slum Settlements. Centre For Development
Alternatives, Ahmedabad.

McKinsey & Company, 2003. Vision Mumbai: Transforming Mumbai into a

world-class city. September, A Bombay First - McKinsey Report.

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

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

Delhi.

012 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

 010

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 013

 02 Chapter
METHODOLOGY
Process
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
people’s capacities and means of living, specifically
drawing out the five forms of assets or capital: human,
016 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
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
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 017
 03 Chapter
TOWARDS THE DHARAVI
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT?
Government Policy Evolution Towards Slums
Enter the Dharavi Redevelopment Project
Policy Comparison and Critique
Physical Proposals and Critiques
Conflicting Visions of the DRP
Conclusions

Several policies shape the influence of the DRP, which have been created for various reasons
and have varying impacts on the residents of Dharavi. Using these policies as a starting point,
it is then possible to imagine the physical territories they will chart. They have the potential to
either further embed existing inequalities, or to chart new territory toward overcoming them.
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 India’s independence in 1947, the first
government approach to the issue of slums has been
a harsh policy of clearance; slums were systematically
demolished without any consideration for the families
living on them.
The radical policy of slum clearance lasted more than
two decades, until in the ‘70s the evidence of the method
failure in addition to practical considerations called for a
change. The government perception of slums changed
from being a problem to a possible solution to the problem
itself. The main achievements of this decade have been
policies for the provision to slums of basic amenities
such as water and sanitation, the recognition of the
need to relocate slum dwellers affected by government
020 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
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
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 India’s financial capital in this
period, at the same time over half the city’s residents live
in informal settlements. One of Mumbai’s main goals is
the transformation into a world-class city by shifting
its image from the location of Asia’s biggest slum to a
model of redevelopment (Mhaiskar lecture, 12 May
2009). In order to become a city comparable to Shanghai,
politicians intended to replace informal settlements
with high-rise developments. (Figure 3.2 and 3.3)
Due to its strategic geographical location and
pressures on the island city, as explained in section
1.2, the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) was
introduced as an integrated special planning area in
2004 and it was declared as a crucial public project by
the government of Maharashtra in 2007. The DRP has
been developed by the architect Mukesh Mehta to the
present.
Declared as a special planning area in 2004, the
Dharavi redevelopment Project (DRP) divides the area
into five sectors for development by five private sector
developers, to be selected through a transparent
bidding process (Chatterjee lecture, 8 May 2009). It
envisions a spatial transformation from horizontal, low-
rise ‘slums’ to a high-rise podium style typology (Figure
3.4); yet how will this change be manifested in reality
Figure 3.3 Mumbai, photo by Chirodeep Chaudhuri
(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’ wide-
ranging needs and aspirations.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 021

Figure 3.5 negotiating the change from hutment deweller to tenement deweller
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 Dharavi’s redevelopment exists
022 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Figure 3.4 DRP proposal sketch: Mumbai Mirror
only in rhetoric at present. Dharavi’s citizens are thus not
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 a acase
DHARAVI caseofof contested
contestedurbanism
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 Figure 3.7 original Dharavi’s division in 85 nagars

undertake the redevelopment for each sector. It is quite

evident that the developers will aim to maximise their
profits without acknowledging the social and cultural
richness of Dharavi. It is the state’s role, however, through
the developmental plans, to achieve a comprehensive
compromise between the needs of the developers and the
aspirations of the people. Additionally, according to the
DRP, 70% of new units are designated for rehabilitation;
the remaining 30% is for sale, while more than 80% of
this sale portion will be for commercial use, in order to
finance the project. This fact brings into doubt whether
the quality of the rehabilitation units will be equal to the
ones designated for sale. Figure 3.8 The 5 sector by Mehta

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 proposed
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 project’s objective is their [Dharavi residents’]
mass economic upliftment by providing better

024 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

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

as MMRDA, MHADA and MCGM playing a primary role

great value on the role of this actor for financing and
in its development. Government statements about the
development; thus their opinion is highly relevant.
DRP highlight how the project has the aim of providing
Mukesh Mehta, one of the key private sector developers
better living conditions for the residents of Dharavi,
backing the development of the DRP, defends it based
with a belief that upgradation can maybe take them
on the critique of the previous SRA scheme and the
into a world class city (Chatterjee lecture, 8 May 2009).
need of Dharavi residents to enjoy amenities such as
Figure 3.9 illustrates the neoliberal trickle down vision
open spaces and infrastructure. According to Mr. Mehta
of development through the three key elements in the
the adjective ‘sustainable’ is the one that best describes
transformation process as expressed by the Mumbai
the DRP, and at the Urban Age India Conference held in
Transformation Support Unit, the organisation created
Mumbai in 2007 he summarised the DRP objectives as
to seek loans for mega projects and determine the
for rehabilitation of families and their businesses within
technical inputs needed to transform Mumbai into a
Dharavi. Mehta’s positive vision of the DRP is summarised
world-class city (Madan lecture, 12 May 2009). “The
in his statement “We’re telling the slum-dwellers: ‘Instead
Slum Redevelopment Authority is supportive of the
of the 100 sq. ft. space you are living in, you will have 225
notion that the redevelopment of Dharavi should
sq. ft. Instead of sharing one toilet between 1,500, you
generate resources for the government, even if that
will have your own toilet, running water, well-lit homes.
means evacuating a portion of the residents and
We will provide schools, colleges and parks’ ”(2007). But
increasing the population density of the area, which
not all the developers see the DRP as a positive step; the
is already one of the highest in the world” (Echanove,
concerns of some developers are focused on financial
2008). The argument that the philanthropic aim is not
and procedural matters about the DRP’s feasibility. The
the primary one is sustained by recent statements made
Mumbai based property developer Housing Development
by government officers. The government’s vision for the
& Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) provides an example of
DRP remains positive, despite the long delays that the
a sceptical vision of the DRP: “the project has become
project has suffered and the 2008 financial crisis, which
unviable and we are not sure when it will take off. There
has caused several developers to withdraw their bids.
is uncertainty over the bidding process and the premium
the government is asking. We do not want to look at
Private Sector Visions
projects which run over four to five years. Today, capital
is not coming that easily and we do not want to invest a
“The Dharavi makeover plan requires huge
single rupee in an unviable project” (Pandey, 2009).
investments […] the original bid document required
The international firm HOK voluntarily prepared an
all the 19 bidders to pay 10% of the project cost
alternative proposal to the DRP alleging that “today’s
upfront in the form of a bank draft” (Naik, 2009).
redevelopment effort threatens Dharavi’s contributions”
(HOK, 2008).
Considering the public private partnership model in
“The current developer-oriented process puts forth
which the DRP is grounded, the government is placing
an approach based on divided, discrete superparcels

DHARAVI 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 it’s a way to appear to do something for
the poor while really gentrifying the area” (Patel cited
in the Economist, 2005).
“Even if they do re-house everyone, they are not
likely to allow the residents much say in what kind of
housing it will be and where” (Arputham, 2007).
“Even if everyone, including Dharavi’s residents,
agree that redevelopment is needed so that the dirt
and the filth is replaced by decent living conditions
and security of tenure, is the style and form of
development chosen by the government the most
appropriate for Dharavi?” (Sharma, 2008).
NGOs such as SPARC have a critical vision of the DRP,
but at the same time maintain a close and highly strategic
relationship with government bodies in order to function
as facilitators between different institutional levels. The
main concerns expressed by NGOs regarding the DRP
refer to the relocation of residents, the complete lack of
an inclusive process and the possible consequences of a
government/market-driven process of redevelopment.
The main academic institution that has collaborated with
the Alliance (SPARC, NSDF, and Mahila Milan) is the Kamla
Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture (KRVIA).
The school’s director commented that the DRP does
not provide enough detail and is a tool for negotiation
rather than implementation, and expressed concern that
it is fundamentally driven by real estate returns (Anirudh
lecture, 6 May 2009). Further concerns were shared
about the excessive population density of Dharavi and
the inaccurate demographic survey, which may lead to
future plans based on incorrect calculations (ibid.).
Residents’ Visions
“Who says Dharavi does not belong to us? Our
forefathers from Saurashtra came to south Mumbai
in the early 1890s. In 1933, the government allocated
us land, but our entire colony was burnt down.
Then some powerful Gujarati traders pressured the
government and 12.50 acres (5 hectares) of land in
026 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Dharavi was allocated to us against a payment of
Rs 1 lakh to a Parsi landlord. So the land on which
Dharavi’s Kumbharwada (potters’ settlement) is
located belongs to us…” (Raju Chauhan, Dharavi
resident, cited on World Prout Assembly).
“I will be very happy for the redevelopment plan.
If I have a good place for my business I want to
stay. Change has to come. But here people are
emotionally attached to each other. They don’t
want to leave. They have everything here and they
are happy. But change must happen. The airport
is very close, the road. For me it’s the best place to
work but if I cannot stay I’m willing to negotiate for
a good place. We are preparing for this. We have to
train the people. To make them have skills” (Fashion
industry owner in Dharavi, interviewed on 11 May
2009).
The previous statements summarise the different
vision that the residents of Dharavi expressed: there
are sceptical groups that have been living in Dharavi for
many generations and are ready to fight if their rights
are not respected, then there are other more moderate
groups that do not oppose the redevelopment plan, but
are aware of the dangers that it may imply and therefore
they want to be part of the process.
Dharavi residents are an extremely diverse group,
divided by social status, religion, origin, gender and
age and their multiplicity of visions reflects this; such
diversity is at the heart of the difficulty of reaching a
general consensus. But the diversity of Dharavi is not the
only challenge towards a more inclusive redevelopment:
an attempt of setting up a group of representatives for
the residents of Dharavi was made on January 2009 with
the creation of a consultative committee, the Advisory
Board (see article on the Indianexpress, 2009). Eleven
members from different backgrounds were selected and
invited to make recommendations to the government
on different practical and organizational aspects. The
committee’s task of steering the government decisions
toward a more needs-focused approach through the
translation of a possible general consensus into planning
and policies proposals will not be easy and there is no
certainty that it will make a real difference on the final
implementation of the DRP.
3.6 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.
REFERENCES
Arputham J., Patel S., 2007. An offer of partnership or a promise of conflict
in Dharavi, Mumbai?. Environment and urbanization, Sage Publication.
Anirudh Paul, 2009. “A Critique of the Government Plan: Dharavi
Redevelopment Project”. Lecture at SPARC Khetwadi office on the 6th of
May.
Burra Sundar, 2005. Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading in
Mumbai, India. Environment and Urbanization, Sage Publications. [http://
www.sagepublications.com]
Business Standard, 2009. Dharavi: HDIL won’t bid directly. Published by
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. Dharavi’s real estate threat. Appeared on World
Prout Assembly webpage on the 1st of December. [http://www.
worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/11/dharavis_real_e.html]
Echanove Matias, 2008. SRA & Mukesh Mehta. Article appeared on the
website www.Dharavi.org on 27th of February.
[http://www.dharavi.org/index.php?title=G._Surveys,_Projects,_
Designs_%26_Plans_or_Dharavi/Projects/SRA_%26_Mukesh_Mehta]
Madan U.P.S., 2009. “Mumbai Transformation”, lecture at SPARC Khetwadi
office on the 12th of May.
Mhaiskar Milind, 2009. “Role of MMRDA and Resettlement and Rehabilitation
(R&R) under Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP)”, presentation at
SPARC khetwadi office on the 12th of May.
Mehta Mukesh, 2007. Asia’s biggest slum set to turn into India’s Madison
Avenue. Published in City Scape and Newsbytes on the 7th of August.
[http://propertybytes.indiaproperty.com/?p=1323]
Pande Hari, 2009. “Redeveloping Dharavi is not viable for us: HDIL”. Article
appeared in Rediff online on the 10th of March. [http://www.rediff.com/
money/2009/mar/10redeveloping-dharavi-is-not-viable-for-us-hdil.html]
Patel Sheela, 2005. Inside the slums. Published on the Economist the 27th
of January 2005. [http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_
id=3599622]
Sharma Kalpana, 2008. The pressure on slumlands. Appeared on Infochange
in April 2008. [http://infochangeindia.org/200804107053/Agenda/Battles-
Over-Land/The-pressure-on-slumlands.html]
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 027
 04 Chapter
CURRENT REALITY IN DHARAVI:
ANALYSIS AND EMERGENT ISSUES

Context, 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 maintaining
DHARAVI a livelihoods and promoting
case of contested urbanism 02
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.). SPARC’s role in the Alliance evolved
over the next decade, alongside policy changes to the
Slum Rehabilitation Act (SRA) in 1995, into one of a
non-profit developer Cooperative Housing Societies.
The analysis seeks to understand the experienced im-
pact on livelihoods of these two rehabilitation projects
under the SRA policy (Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira),
to outline the results of the urban analysis of Dharavi’s
Chambda Bazaar area and to identify the anticipated
impact of potential developments in the latter.
Figure 4.1 Example analysis diagram- issue criteria vs core analytical concepts
030 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
The information collected from interviews and
observations at the given sites were filtered through
the analytical concepts of policy, livelihoods and
space and the four criteria – diversity, adaptability,
flexibility and multiplicity – that form the theoretical
framework.
As illustrated in Figure 4.1, in each section of the
analysis the findings are located at the appropriate in-
tersection, with three circles used to illustrate the link
of an issue to the framework. A solid circle indicates
a positive outcome or a strong relationship, a white
circle illustrates a negative outcome or weak relation-
ship, and a striped circle shows partially positive and
negative outcomes or strong and weak relationships.
The figures in each subsection of Section 4.2 analyse
the experienced impact on livelihoods in Bharat Jana-
ta and Rajiv Indira, while figures in subsections of 4.4
use the framework to analyse both the experienced
reality (i.e. what was observed in the field) alongside
the anticipated impacts of in-situ redevelopment in
Chambda Baazar.
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

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 031

 4.2.2 Introduction to the Bharat Janata Cooperative
Housing Society
One hundred and forty-seven families formed the
Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society in 1991 after
seeing the work and progress of the Rajiv Indira. The
agreement with SPARC was made in 1991, the demolition
of huts began in 2003, and hutment dwellers moved into
the three completed buildings in 2006. The construction
project is still in progress: two more blocks with 50 units
for sale are yet to be built. Located in the ‘middle’ of
Dharavi (Figure 4 .3), the site does not have the roadside
‘edge’ advantage of other in-situ redevelopment
projects; part of SPARC’s motivation was to illustrate
that upgrading is possible in this context, and to test the
Alliance’s hypothesis that Dharavi has an internal market
for residential and commercial units (Kantha, n.d).

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

032 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

 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
An interview with one commercial establishment
has no members holding commercial permits providing
renter highlighted concerns about the future location
entitlement to commercial space in a redevelopment
inside a compound and off the road, possibly reducing
project, the Bharat Janata Cooperative Housing Society
business, increasing rent and requiring new residential
has five members with registered commercial activities
accommodation in Dharavi or elsewhere. Findings
(Figure 4.4). These members lived on the second floor
illustrate that the SRA policy fails to recognise the
and ran their businesses on the ground floor; currently,
multiplicity of use in existing building structures, therefore
four of the five rent their residential/commercial
rendering itself inflexible to people’s requirements and to
structure.
individuals’ adaptability over time.
Analysis found that the SRA policy creates a trade-
off for owners of both commercial units and residential
space located in the same structure to choose between
one or the other. In Bharat Janata, all five owners chose
the former and forwent the latter. As three buildings
have been already constructed while two are yet to be
built, the new commercial spaces will be relocated in
the ground floor of the fourth building.

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 033

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

Figure 4.6 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
Figure 4.7 physical layout of interaction space in the previous and
their quality of life, many noted that the relationship the current situation and corresponding analytical diagram
between neighbours is now weaker and lives are more

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 035

Dhandesh, 14 years, BJ
“We play on the ground floor of the building but often when we are running around we fall and hurt
ourselves. We would like to have a better area to play”
Figure 4.8 The quality of communal space around the building
(Bharat Janata) and corresponding analytical diagram
036 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
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,
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
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
038 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
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.
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.

Figure 4.12a Dharavi development in 1933
“Bombay Guide Map Including Parts of Salsette”:
Map by Surveyor General of India, showing further in-
creased built form.
Figure 4.12b Dharavi development in 1969
“Bombay Guide Map”: Map by Surveyor General
of India, showing High Density built form in some
Figure 4.12c Dharavi development in 2008
Present Situation: Dharavi at present with Chambda
Bazaar showing the Highest density of built form.
Location and Accessibility: The triangular area
defining Chambda Bazaar has emerged as a predominantly
commercial district due to its strategic location near the
Bandra Kurla Complex and good road-rail connectivity
with the rest of the city: three railway stations are found on
Dharavi’s edges, with Sion station used largely by people
in Chambda Bazaar. St. Rotides Marg and Cross Road link
the Dharavi Main Road and the 90 Feet Road, the latter
two being the most important north-south road linkages
inside Dharavi (Figure 4.13). All other internal roads are
pedestrian.
The Density and Land use: Chambda Bazaar
currently has a high residential tenement density of 706
per hectare (KRVIA, 2007), with both purely residential
high rise clusters in the middle to home based commercial
working units spread all over (Figure 4.14). The district,
8,478 square metres bounded by three main peripheral
Figure 4.13 Major road linkages throughout Dharavi
Figure 4.14 Land use distribution in Chambda Bazaar
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 039
 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

040 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

4.4 Anticipated impact of in-situ redevelopment
in Chambda Baazar

4.4.1 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 Final product of leather The tanned leather Customer networks
from Chennai is processed ( leather jackets) is sold from Chennai is processed throughout India
within Dharavi. Outside of Dharavi within Dharavi.

Figure 4.16 Production chain at various geographical scales

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 041

 small scale medium scale
candy shop embroidery shop
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
large scale
bakery
Figure 4.17 Various scales of commercial enterprise
Excluded users of space
Official documents and interviews made evident the
fact that the Dharavi Redevelopment Plan (DRP) does
not recognise the rights of renters, transient tenants nor
the multiplicity of uses of one structure by families or
enterprises. At present a large section of the commercial
activities in Chambda Baazar are reliant on migrant
workers who work for free or nominal remuneration, such
as the provision of food and shelter. Multiple business
owners living within Dharavi often give dormitory spaces
for these transient workers the within their commercial
clusters (Figure 4.18). Most single enterprise owners are
reliant on skilled workers and provide them with food as
well as shelter in close vicinity to the shop. The workers
are dependent on public amenities provided within the
cluster. Such flexible conditions of work-live and the
adaptations owners have made through time to address
their labourers’ needs is not addressed in SRA policy.
Live and work tenements of workers (generally migrants) are spatially located in proximity to or within the business
units where they are employed.

Figure 4.18 Live/work space (migrant workers)

Lack of community involvement

Interviews with Chambda Baazar commercial owners
illustrated a lack of transparency and information
regarding the Dharavi Redevelopment Plan (DRP), and
that no attempts have been made to initiate community
involvement in the plan. In absence of any organisation
of workers looking after their rights, the treatment of the
workers differs in diverse trades. At present, they have
no collective voice in the DRP and their future in Dharavi
“I am the third generation who has been in this
depends on their employers. The vast population of
jewellery business. I currently live outside Dharavi while
migrant workers, the powerhouse Dharavi, would be
my workers are living within. My customers are local
forced to move out of Dharavi to live and commute to
which I depend on heavily. I personally do not want any
work, which implies the increases labour price with
changes. My customers will be displaced and I could
further consequences. The SRA policy, defining stringent
lose this network. I do not like the mall typology. These
criteria for inclusion in the project, might disrupt the
cluster enterprise works best because it retains the
smooth functioning economic network of Dharavi, a
profits.”
situation that takes priority over domestic needs.

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 043

 Figure 4.19 Different scale home-based commercial

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

4.4.2 Home based commercial activity

Diversity of home-based activities

Small scale home-based commercial activities found
in Chambda Bazaar are usually undertaken by women
to supplement the main income of the household,
where their activities form one step in a larger chain of
production (Figure 4.19). These production chains, that
have different scales of manufacturing, benefit from the
diversity and flexibility of the social networks existing
in the area, as employers can informally ask women to
finish the work quicker than usual or to share work with
friends and neighbours if difficult schedules have to be
met. This kind of flexibility allows the workshops to run
more efficiently and highlights the current mutually
beneficial organisational network, sustained by informal,
long-standing relationships built on reliance and trust
between employers and employees. Relocation of the
workshops or formalisation of these networks will reduce
flexibility and may hinder the growth of the existing
diverse networks. SRA policy fails to understand the
diversity and flexibility of space and networks that home-
based commercial activities require.
044 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

medium scale
Household: Fakir Ahmed Azaad
Mr Fakir Ahmed Azaad’s runs a thriving tabla making business. Each tabla takes 3 days to make and sells for Rs. 3000-4000. Mr. Azaad’s children work
as his apprentices will inherit it in the future. Mrs. Bilkis’s embroidery work is mainly done to supplement the main income of the household and she
earns Rs. 2 per finished piece that she brings from the workshop.
EXPERIENCED REALITY
ANTICIPATED IMPACT
Figure 4.20 Different scale home-based commercial
Larger scale traditional home-based businesses run
by entire families that can be comparable to a medium
scale commercial enterprise also exist in Chambda
Bazaar. Working from home, families can capitalise on
the contribution of all family members; this adaptation
to maximise human resources is critical for successfully
sustaining larger scale home-based activities, as
illustrated by the stories in (Figure 4.20).
Household: Bilkis
small scale
Small Scale
Household: Bilkis
Multiplicity of Spaces
Residential and commercial tenements are often
very small and have a multiplicity of co-existing uses,
for example as a shop, for daily living, as a work space
and storage space, meaning that many activities are
extended into open space outside the main structure.
While the existing hutments provide relatively easy
access to communal spaces, and people have adapted to
such practices, the situation is far from convenient. The
variations of activities in single spaces gives open spaces
a diverse character as demonstrated by Figure 4.21. The
multiplicity of use of space highlights the adaptation that
has taken place in response to the lack of space as well
as infrastructure. While younger people find communal
spaces to be enjoyable and colorful and providing an
opportunity to socialise, older people find it difficult to
climb up and down very steep stairs many times a day
in order to do daily chores. Currently, the low-rise homes
allow residents to adapt their homes to the needs of their
family. Marriages result in more family members and it is
common to extend the current house by building another
room on top or adjacent to it. Such options will not exist
in high-rise dwellings and families could potentially get
fragmented, as members of the same family will have to
find alternate housing options.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 045
Recognition of diverse activities
Policy also underestimates the current multiplicity
of spaces. For instance, the DRP guidelines aim
to provide 6% commercial space in each building
that is supposed to accommodate the commercial
activities of all residents of the building. While small
scale home-based activities can continue within
the tenements, activities that need more space Papad makers use communal open
such as Mr. Azaad’s tabla making business cannot spaces for commercial activites

be sustained in such circumstances. A small scale

home-based activity that is substantially common is
papad making. Currently the papad makers have the
flexibility to use open spaces, needed to make and
dry the product during the day, according to their
needs. When interviewed they reported their work
would be seen as a disruption in buildings where
open spaces would be very limited and regulated.

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

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

EXPERIENCED REALITY ANTICIPATED IMPACT

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

046 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

4.5 Summary of analysis and findings: moving into
the Scenarios
The ability to determine ones own future is a key
aspect of transformation. Our research in Rajiv Indira,
Bharat Janata and Chambda Bazaar emphasises this
point, having revealed the socio-economic capacity to
adapt spatially, thus sustaining activities and livelihoods.
Adaptability was found to be high and inherent amongst
all families and enterprises interviewed, despite the vast
degree of diversity.
Dharavi, known for its diverse productive nature,
contains a widespread international network heavily
dependent on skilled and unskilled migrant workers
and entrepreneurs. Their exclusion from SRA policies
and the DRP not only carries individual implications,
but also a fear in the decreasing availability of cheap
labor, leading to an increase in the overall cost of the
production. A major consequence here lies in the
spectrum of financial capacity of Dharavi, as certain
wealthier citizens and potential investors could take
their business elsewhere thus dissolving the rich
economy of the area.
A significant aspect of this stimulated economy
are home-based livelihood activities, where social and
economic practices unfold within multi-functional
spaces, branding the dwelling with an important dual
value. Beyond the physical and productive values, an
emotional investment exists that creates a sense of
belonging in the residents.
This is especially evident in older nagars such as
Chambda Bazaar where dwellings have stood for more
than three generations, symbolising strong family
heritage. However, current policies lack sensitivity
in regards to historical value and more importantly
the recognition of rights in terms of tenured land
ownership.
Perhaps more central to our analytical framework
and conceptual framework in terms of policy limitations
is the lack of inclusionary processes. The failure of non-
transparent policy provisions have created disparity
between authorities and citizens. In regards to the
spatial design of the SRA projects studied, there
appeared to be a general lack of clear participatory
strategy. People were informed about the project, but
not necessarily involved in their schematic production,
thus the multiplicities and diversities of spatial use and
networks were largely ignored. The levels of adaptability
and flexibility were transferred to the individuals alone
rather than incorporated into the plans. While these
observations are arguably the responsibility of a particular
projects’ inception, they represent the general lack of
policy attention. On-site research in Chambda Bazaar
revealed further disparities in the fact that many people
were unclear as to the specificities of the DRP and the
potential implications it held for them. In this case, the
desire for broader informative mechanisms is essential
alongside more attentive processes of inclusion.
The overall aspiration of the people towards policy
is to facilitate a transformation that benefits future
generations. Spatial environment, though important
was a secondary concern behind maintaining livelihoods
and promoting better educational prospects. Analysis
has shown a resiliency of people to adapt challenges
created by new situations and to expand their social
and economic capacities. The limits of their capacity,
however, call for greater inclusion amongst the policy-
making processes that in turn regulate social and spatial
transformation. The following scenarios illustrate a
shifting of our analysis and findings towards informing
proposals that conceptually address these notions of
inclusion and participation around policy, space and
livelihoods in order to address the adaptability, flexibility,
multiplicity and diversity within urban redevelopment.
REFERENCES:
Mukhija Vinit, 2003. Squatters as developers. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
London.
Nirman website, n.d. Rajiv Indira Suryodaya and Ganga housing society,
Mumbai. (http://www.Homeless International, 2008. Cliff Annual review
08. Astwood Design Consultancy.)
Kantha Binti, n.d. Slum rehabilitation in Bharat Janata housing cooperative
project. SPARC. Unpublished.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 047
 05 Chapter
BRIDGING THE GAP:
RATIONALE FOR THE SCENARIOS

At the critical point of defining the conceptual approach of our proposals, based on our analysis,
findings and vision, a significant disparity became evident in the choice of where these should
be focused. Finding a balance between the DRP vision and the Alternative Visions was obviously
critical but this was primarily constrained by the fact that the DRP vision is currently in the
process of being implemented.
 The analysis and findings, based on our field expe-
rience in Dharavi and our parallel engagement with the
various actors through presentations and discussions,
provided an adequate platform to identify key areas for
conceptualising potential interventions. These key areas
include the need to increase community participation
at multiple levels of the transformation process, and to
recognise the divergent spatial and policy needs to ac-
commodate livelihoods alongside a wider range of flex-
ible and adaptive spatial typologies based on the diverse
needs and capacities of Dharavi’s citizens.
At the critical point of defining the conceptual ap-
proach of our proposals, based on our analysis, findings
and vision, a significant disparity became evident in the
choice of where these should be focused. As illustrated in
Figure 5.1, conceptually we identified two polarised ex-
tents of Dharavi’s contestation, the first represented by
the DRP vision. This vision is influenced by diverse forces
050 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
such as political interest, real estate markets and global
financial markets. Under the unification of the DRP all
these dominant forces act holistically towards imple-
menting transformation. On the opposite end of the
DRP is what we term Alternative Visions, the resistant
forces representing the multiplicity of interests includ-
ing NGOs, research institutions as well as the enormous
diversity of the citizens of Dharavi, including established
communities, landlords, local businessmen, residents,
migrant workers and religious groups, to name a few.
Of critical significance is the fragmented nature of these
visions in comparison to the unified front presented by
the DRP.
Finding a balance between the DRP vision and the
Alternative Visions was obviously critical but this was
primarily constrained by the fact that the DRP vision
is currently in the process of being implemented. We
found that many of our conceptual proposals required a
Figure 5.1 Setting the Scenario
fundamental shift away from some directions being taken
by the DRP, while other proposals could be adapted into
the already initiated framework of transformation being
implemented by the DRP.

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

ios:

Scenario 1: This Scenario is intended to be adapted into

the DRP within its current framework for transformation.
It heeds and adheres to all of the key principles instilled
in the DRP, such as the maintenance of the five developer
sectors, the global Floor Space Index of 4, the modern-
istic podium typology of spatial massing and the other
planning and design guidelines. It seeks to improve the
structures of citizen representation and participation
within the existing framework of the DRP and it infuses
findings from the field towards meeting spatially diverse
livelihood needs.

Scenario 2: This Scenario aims to present an alternative

scenario that is not completely limited by the exacting
stipulations of existing DRP policy framework. It address-
es what elements change and justifies such alterations,
and intends to find an entry point that incorporates the
requirements and aspirations of the citizens of Dharavi as
highlighted in our analysis and findings, whilst maintain-
ing a level of intention to act opportunistically to benefit
Mumbai as a whole.

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 051

 06 Chapter
THE SCENARIOS

Scenario 01 The Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Project

Scenario 02 The BUDD Charette: Towards an Alternative Vision

The primary argument behind our alternative vision challenges the singularity of the urban and
architectural form proposed, whilst the secondary argument comes as a direct response to the
policies of exclusion of the DRP. As we argue for policies to be informed by the reality of specific
places, we propose a progressive approach to transformation that is directly linked with the
context, and that prioritises the community before other stakeholders.
 06Scenario
Chapter 01
The Adjusted Dharavi Redevelopment Project
Towards Citizen Participation in the DRP
Spatial Transformation in the DRP:
Beyond Provision, Towards Adaption & Enablement

054 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism


The proposals presented as part of Scenario 1
have been developed for adaption and inclusion
into the Dharavi Redevelopment Project’s (DRP)
process and policy framework as it currently
exists. It adheres to the current fundamental
principles of five Developer Sectors, a FSI of
four and Podium Spatial Typology and offers
two main proposals for integration into the
DRP. The first regards the inclusion of steps
towards increased citizen participation in the
DRP transformation process, while the second
seeks to respond to our analysis for the need
to diversify basic spatial provisions towards
enabling long term flexibility and adaption
of use based on an acknowledgement of the
diverse needs and capacities of the residents of
Dharavi.
6.1.1 Towards Citizen Participation in the DRP
Citizen participation is the involvement or cooperation
of citizen groups, bodies or organisations with the state
or development agencies (Desai, 1995). The role of citizen
inclusion in a process claimed a s participatory can vary
widely, ranging from their manipulation by dominant
forces to citizens creating and driving the transformative
process.
Our understanding of participation as a staircase, as
illustrated in Figure 6.1, is informed by Arnstein’s (1969)
Ladder of Citizen Participation and the International
Association of Public Participation. The diagram illustrates
the lowest level of participation as manipulation, where
dominant powers distort citizens’ engagement in the
process (Slocum, 1995). The highest form of participation,
empowerment, enables a sense of self-reliance on skills
and abilities and is achieved when citizens themselves
are deeply and meaningfully engaged in elaborating
the transformative process. While ‘manipulation’ and
‘empowerment’ represent the ends of the spectrum, there
are numerous steps in between. Overall participation
should be transparent, with those involved being not only
Figure 6.1 Varying Degrees of Participation
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 055
informed, but included at some level in the elaboration
of the process.
Thus far the DRP process had a contested path towards
achieving a platform for appropriate citizen participation.
Initially the DRP adopted no form of citizen representation
in implementing its vision for transformation in Dharavi. It
showed no intent of altering this stance and was pushed
to do so after continuous pressure was placed on the state
and central government by several groups consisting of
local civil and business organisations, NGOs, academics
and activists who campaigned relentlessly for a rethinking
of the DRP process and the inclusion of citizen rights
and representation in the transformation process (Patel
& Arputham 2008). The outcome of such pressure has
been the appointment of the Expert Advisory Committee
(EAC) to the DRP, as officially recognised in January 2009.
The DRPs engagement with this committee, formed of a
diverse cross section of professionals, NGOs and academic
institutions such as KRVIA, represents the first major step
in achieving a degree of citizen participation in the DRP,
although it remains that significant scope still exists for
an improvement in broader-based citizen engagement.
Figure 6.2 exclusionary nature of the DRP
056 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
Having been present at a point in the process where
the EAC has been presented with the DRPs intention of
implementing the modernistic ‘podium’ spatial typology
it became evident to us that the EAC still face substantial
challenges in trying to negotiate the direction for
transformation being carried by the DPR. There is a
poignant note on contestation of the transformation
process: While the EAC has made significant headway
in initiating its own capacity for negotiating the path of
the DRP, it now has to contend from within, the reality of
its disproportionate power share in the transformation
process.
In keeping with this Scenario’s intent of working
within the existing contextual parameters posed by
the DRP, it has been assumed in principle that the latest
proposals for the‘podium’typology will be implemented.
What we are proposing are potentially achievable
methods of citizen participation in this already initiated
implementation process, that will look to take steps up
the conceptual model of citizen participation (fig 6.1)
In the current context of the DRP two possible steps
exist. The first step is obviously quite limited in terms
of the degree of participation that can realistically be
achieved due to the advanced status of the master
planning process. Many defining decisions to date have
been made with no citizen engagement. Thus in the
context of the current state of the DRP the first form of
participation that can be reached is one of ‘Informing’,
this takes the first step of creating transparency
of the transformation process and addressing the
apprehensions towards change within the community
based on their misunderstanding of the DRPs
intentions.
Key Constraint to Participation in the DRP: Who
participates?
Under the current DRP framework, ‘eligible’
participants for a citizen engagement process are
technically only those who are registered on the
voting roll since 1 January, 2000. At present we are not
certain how many people are included in this register.
Those individuals technically ‘ineligible’ under the DRP,
including migrant workers, unregistered residents,
tenants or those who became residents of Dharavi
subsequent to the cut off date, are thus constricted in

their role of the participatory rocesses proposed for the
DRP. While these ‘eligible’ and ‘ineligible’ statuses, as
depicted in Figure 6.2, may technically be the case, we
strongly believe that those who are ineligible to receive
housing at no cost under the scheme should also be part
of the information session. Such individuals represent an
important segment of the population that will continue
to be part of Dharavi after the implementation of the
scheme, and in this sense, are stakeholders that need to
be included.
Step 1: Informing citizens about the DRP
The first step towards citizen participation in the DRP
must be information provision. Our interviews in the
field illustrated that residents either had a partial idea,
were misinformed or had no basic conception of the
DRP intentions. The most basic form of informing would
not necessitate personable consulting forums but be
through official posters and pamphlets can be made
available to keep the public abreast of what is occurring
in the DRP process. Once architectural typologies have
been in effect designed, drawings, models and even
mocked out tenements can be placed for public display
in locations in each sector. This would build awareness
and also balance expectation of what is to be provided
under the DRP.
If the DRP is willing to scale up the level of informing,
it could decide to engage in appropriately sized public
presentations and forums. A potential way to inform a
wide audience is by organising informal group meetings
for various citizen interest groups, a crucial step to
bring clarity and understanding as well as transparency
to the process. Finding an appropriate size for the
audience of such information sessions is important as
Figure 6.3 Means of Design Communication
the aim is to address a reasonable quantity of people in
an environment intimate enough to encourage people
to voice their concerns and openly ask questions. It is
also critical that the information is stated in a way that
is understandable to those attending the meetings, thus
use of pamphlets and architectural models can be useful
tools (Figure 6.3).
Citizens can be made aware of these meetings
through different media. In the context of Dharavi, orally
communicating the details of these meeting can provide
an inexpensive and effective way to create awareness. In
addition, informative posters outlining the topic, date and
location of meetings can also be useful to inform people
of these meetings. Pamphlets can be passed around to
share the basic information about the DRP, to stimulate
further discussion during meetings.
An important challenge to overcome when engaging
with the citizens of Dharavi pertains to the question
of accurate representation. Such elements must be
delicately determined as it is crucial to ensure that a
representative amount of interest groups are met.
Step 2: From Informing towards Consulting and
Involving Dharavi’s citizen groups
The ability to move up the stairs of citizen participation
towards consulting involves engagement and
consultation with resident representative groups. Given
the constrains that exist within the DRP with recognition
of citizen rights and representation making this step up
is obviously challenging. We have however identified
one area where such a step would be plausible. Working
within this scenario’s stated remit of staying within the
DRP framework, we realise that it is unlikely that the DRP
would want to initiate the formation of citizen groups
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 057
particularly concerned with the transformation process.
However from our fieldwork we came to understand that
a host of existing resident groups already exist in Dharavi.
This sector of civil society representation includes
existing social, cultural, religious and recreational groups.
Within the contexts of the framework of the existing DRP
we have indentified an area of scope for consultation
with existing civil society groups. Sections 7.3 and 8.0
in Appendix IV-A of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project
Draft Modification focuses on the inclusion of recreational
grounds, playgrounds, gardens and park as well as welfare
halls, Balwadis, society offices and religious buildings.
Consulting civil society on such areas within the current
DRP plan would help better mould these areas that the
DRP has already endeavoured to provide.
A forum for participatory engagement can thus be
initiated in each sector once the developers and existing
civil society groups have been identified for these
designated areas. The scope of participation would be
defined at the outset and focused on the open space
and communal areas identified in Sections 7.3 and 8.0
of the DRP. The actors for this engagement as identified
in Figure 6.4 would include representatives from the
developer including an architect, officials from the DRP.
The forums could be facilitated by NGO groups and the
community could be advised by academic groups such
as KRVIA. Figure 6..4 multi-actor participation diagram
Figure 6..4 multi-actor participation diagram
Figure 6.5 proposed monolithic typology of the DRP
DHARAVI aacase
058 DHARAVI caseof
of contested
contestedurbanism
urbanism
Conclusions
While we acknowledge that given the current
state at which the DRP stands, the initiation of citizen
participation may be seen as a ‘retrofitted’ gesture aimed
at co-opting or appeasing various communities into
agreeing with the directions that have been primarily
decided for them. We however still believe that there is
still an overwhelmingly substantial benefit to be had by
both the DRP and the residents of Dharavi if methods
and practice of participation are introduced into the
DRP transformation process and implemented with
transparency and genuine intent and integrity.
‘I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and if we
think them not enlightened enough to exercise
their control with a wholseome discretion, the
remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
their discretion.’
Thomas Jefferson 1820
6.1.2 Spatial Transformation in the DRP: Beyond
Provision, Towards Adaption & Enablement
When analysing policies addressing the Dharavi
Redevelopment Project (DRP), the term hutment
dweller is used to classify the status of many existing
citizens. Appendix IV-A of the Dharavi Redevelopment
Project Draft Modification states the rights of hutment
dwellers as:
‘1.1 Hutment-dwellers, in the slum or on the
pavement, eligible in accordance with the provisions
of development Control regulation 33(10) (A) shall
in exchange for their structure, be given free of cost
a residential tenement having a carpet area of 20.90
sq.mt. (225 sq.ft) including balcony, bath and water
closet, but excluding common areas. ‘
The conceptual basis of the policy defines the status
of eligible residents in the DRP by the typology of their
abode, where the DRP’s spatial change is predicated on
a transformation from ‘hutments’ to ‘tenements.’ This
spurred reflection on the question of what occurs when
a ‘Hutment Dweller’ becomes a ‘Tenement Dweller’?
When viewing the illustration of transformation
forseen by the DRP in the Mumbai Mirror (Figure 6.5) one
realises that a precedent for analysing transformation
through the future typology is already evident in
Dharavi, as its spatial fabric is scattered with many high
rise buildings, some older chawl buildings but also
many recent SRA constructed high-rise blocks. Hence
the unpacking of this transformation based on typology
can be informed significantly by our fieldwork analysis
in Bharat Janata and Rajiv Indira Housing Cooperative
Societies.
The following three case studies highlight key
findings.
Case Study 1: Mr Hariharan
Mr Hariharan (Figure 6.6) represents a large range of
families interviewed in Rajiv Indira. He is very appreciative
of the positive impact that the transformation from
hutment to tenement has had on himself and his family’s
lives, the most significant benefit being the improvement
of sanitation and the provision of running water in the
home. The space he was provided in his tenement,
although limiting in some ways to his family’s long
term growth aspirations, is adequate for their current
requirements. As a vegetable vendor at the local market,
he does not rely on his residence for livelihood activities
and the provision of a 225 square foot tenement has
sufficiently served his needs and capacities.
Figure 6.6 livelihood profile in rajiv indira
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 059
Case Study 2: Mr Krishnan children marry, with the growth accommodated in
Mr Krishnan (Figure 6.7) provides another case in the same home. While such changes may arise in the
terms of aspirations and capacity. As a clerical worker coming years, Mr Krishnan’s resources and capacity is
at the Mumbai Airport he has a stable and relatively not taken into account and thus irrelevant in affording
substantial income and in turn demonstrates a much additional space to grow. The inflexibility for growth
higher capacity to invest in his in home, having spent in beyond the 225 square feet is a critical constraint here.
excess of Rs 3 Lakh in modifying his tenement. The high ‘Hutments’ allow for more growth and adaptability than
priority he places in on investing in his home is evident the standard sized ‘tenement’.
in the exceptionally high quality of the finishes he has
paid for such as the wall and floor tiling, the sliding glass
partitions to the loft and modern fittings in the bathroom
and kitchen. This investment is however limited to
modifying the decorative aspects of his home. In terms
of needs Mr Krishnan believes that the home satisfies his
current family size of four although apprehensions exist
regarding his family’s growth potential in this home. This
is a view shared with most other residents interviewed in
Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata.
Culturally families in these communities grow as

Figure 6.7 livelihood profile in rajiv indira

060 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

Case Study 3 Mr Subiah
Mr Subiah (Figure 6.8) and his family presented a case
that explicitly highlights the need for acknowledging
the reality of large scale home-based activities in
residential tenements. The family of six all participate in
either the making or selling of their potato vada, with
their 225 square foot home acting as the storage space
and preparation centre. The family has no option but to
prioritise the accommodation of their livelihood before
the needs of their own personal space. As such, pockets
of potatoes and onions and space for grinding and
frying equipment take up the majority of the space in
this family’s home.
They have also been unfortunate in being allocated a
top floor unit in Rajiv Indira, as the units on the top two
floors of the building do not have the 14 foot ceilings
and thus loft spaces provided on the floors below. This
stemmed from a late development in the brief of the
project that required the addition of two floors to the
building. As such a lift, normally to be included in building
of this height, was not provided. The Subiah family hence
have to incur a delivery cost of Rs. 300 every 10-14 days to
carry large quantities of produce up five storeys of stairs.
This cost is one they did not have to pay in their previous
roadside hutment as they were able carry the produce to
their home themselves.
This capacity to pay in on average in access of Rs. 600
per month for deliveries illustrates that the family has the
ability to utilise the same amount of money per month to
pay perhaps a return on a loan for additional floor space
that would have served their requirements in the long-
term.
Figure 6.8 livelihood profile in rajiv indira
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 061
Deductions Based on Case Studies
The fieldwork analysis of Rajiv Indira and Bharat Janata
strengthened our apprehensions regarding the provision
of a single sized typology of residential tenement t hat
negated the reality of diverse needs and capacities
present amongst the citizens of Dharavi. The diversity
within Dharavi exists as a multiplicity of not just culture
and society but also needs, resources and capacities.
The DRP is not reflectively informed nor seemingly
acknowledging the diversity present at multiple levels in
Dharavi’s citizens.
Designing for Enablement: Recognising Diversity and
Providing for Flexibility and Adaptation
In response to our findings on the diverse needs and
capacities that exist amongst the ‘Hutment Dwellers’
that are to be rehoused in the DRP into tenements, we
propose a range of basic spatial options that can be
adapted to cater to families’ their divergent aspirations,
capacities and needs.
On average families numbering between five to six
people have to live in a single room tenement. In Rajiv
Indira the use of loft space on the lower floors provides
families with some level of flexibility to adapt their
homes to their needs. To the average family it afforded
them the value of privacy between sleeping spaces
amongst adults and children: the obvious need for this
spatial adaptability and flexibility to address diversity
and multiplicity of use is unaddressed in the current DRP.
Indeed, further to this is the DRP decision to not allow
14 foot high loft typologies in future buildings causes a
critical constraint for the design of units to provide any
form of flexibility.
While the DRP intention of increasing unit sizes to
269 square feet internally and providing a balcony of 30
square feet is a step in the right direction, this one size
will still never adhere to the diverse long terms spatial
needs of the majority of affected families.
Options for growth
The DRP induced constraint for individual units to have
ceilings not higher than 8 feet means that this scenario
investigates only lateral growth options (Figure 6.9). The
premise of the proposal is to provide the provisional 300
062 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
square foot residential unit as the standard basic unit
to all eligible residents, but alongside this option offer
the potential to purchase additional floor space to the
provided unit.
Figure 6.9 possiblity for expansion under the DRP
Costs and Feasibility
The proposal tries to balance the diverse needs and
capacities of communities with maintaining structural
and commercial feasibility. This is done by allowing
only two additional options each with a further 100
square feet (Figure 6.10). The space provided within
the unit will remain bare and primarily the same as the
standard units, thus leaving the onus of adapting the
internal spaces to the individual owners to achieve at
their own pace. Hence the additional construction
costs are limited to the extended size of the floor slab,
the addition of two windows and a minimal amount
of additional bricks for the longer wall. This additional
construction cost, because of its basic nature, should be
affordable to residents.
In a conversation with a senior DRP official, such
a solution was deemed a ‘win-win situation’because
if people paid for the building that cost it would not
be need to be recouped by the developer, hence the
amount of FSI granted to offset building costs would be
somewhat curtailed. He also stated that the additional
floor space could be provided at a subsidised rate of Rs.
300 per square foot. For the purposes of our proposal
we have increased this figure to Rs. 400 per. This equates
to a cost of Rs. 40 000 and Rs. 80 000 for 100 square feet
and 200 square feet respectively.
 Figure 6.10 options to purchase additional space

Figure 6.11 enabling spatial proposals

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 063

Design
The generic design diagrams presented in Figure
6.11 are based on the unit designs used in Bharat Janata.
They are not proposed to remain the same but attempt
to illustrate the principle of growth potential from the
additional floor space. The impact of having different
sized units will affect the overall design of the buildings,
but this is seen as well within the potential of architects
to derive buildings that accommodate this larger unit
typology using modular design principles to maintain
the structural feasibility.
an intermediary phase that precedes adaptation to the
habitual environment that is provided. The opportunity
exists within the DRP to allow for this adaptation phase
to be enabling in the long term to the citizens of Dharavi.
To do so requires acknowledging the diversity that exists
culturally, socially and economically amongst residents
and allowing them the room for adaptation and growth.
Provision without flexibility removes the potential for
enablement and reduces long-term sustainability.

Flexibility and Enablement

The hypothesis of staircase to participation presented
at the outset for this scenario illustrates the fundamental
constraints to participation under the current DRP plan.
By maintaining the provision of the single type of type
of tenement, the most that can be accomplished is
informing residents of what their allocated residence
would resemble.

Adopting the proposal to option in additional floor

space provides the potential to take significant steps up
the ladder. By allowing the process to recognise diverse
capacities and needs, the DRP process would be moving
towards the threshold of ‘consult’ and ‘involve’. In the
longer term, this could evolve towards ‘empower’ based
on people being enabled to adapt their spaces to their
needs and invest capital into their homes.

The recognition of the diverse capacity of people

within Dharavi makes this proposal viable. Based on the
case studies from Rajiv Indira that we have identified we
can assume that for instance a person such as Mr Krishnan
who invested 3 Lakhs on decorative modifications to his
home would have opted to take the extra 200 square feet
option and had sufficient room to adapt the space for his
future extended family. Or in the case of Mr Subia the
Rs600 per month that now being spent on delivery could
have been directed to towards paying for some much
needed additional space to accommodate his family’s
home based activity and living requirements.

It must be recognised that the process of trans-

formation in the DPR does not stop after the provision of
standardised tenements to hutment dwellers. It is merely

064 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

 06Scenario
Chapter 02
The BUDD Charette: Towards an Alternative Vision

Revisiting the Vision

The Concept
Redevelopment Strategies
Process of Citizen Involvement
Catalogue

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 065

 1988), which recognizes that the ‘development of slums
has to be through the participation of people and their
local leaders’ (Sharma & Sita, 2000, p. 3734).
The BUDD Charrette has been developed as a
response to the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Limitations of the Proposal
Whilst this alternative scenario defends the need for
(DRP). Its objective is to present an alternative
a pluralistic approach to design, it does not tackle the
scenario based on the policy framework in
issues of the delivery system. Although the discourse
place, without being unconditionally limited
supporting a need of plural methods of provision
by it. Instead of developing a plan that stands (Keivani & Werna, 2001) has became widely accepted,
completely outside the embedded framework, we believe this concept to be too detached from the
the proposal is set halfway between theoretical framework and policies in place to be included in a
notions that support grassroots transformation realistic alternative vision.
and the very real pressure coming from the city As an urban development proposal, the vision
presented in this section does not represent an end
level. It is intended as a response in a process
result, but rather the key elements of a process. The
of negotiation.
visual support found in this section thus aims to provide
explanations to the concepts put forward, and is by no
means illustrative of definitive urban and architectural
forms. We are thereby presenting an urban planning
Presentation
intervention in an alterative way (Patel, 1997: 822) and
For this purpose, the ethos conceptualised in this
in doing so, departing from the conventional master
scenario comes as an answer to the contested elements
plan format.
of the DRP. The primary argument behind our alternative
vision challenges the singularity of the urban and
architectural form proposed, whilst the secondary
6.2.1 Revisiting the Vision
argument comes as a direct response to the policies of
As part of our initial vision of Dharavi as a place with
exclusion of the DRP. Our emergent vision of Dharavi
a unique, multiple and dynamic character, where global
is one that recognises the multidimensionality of the
demands and local aspirations can be merged together
modes of tenure in Dharavi.
and the production of new urban forms are consciously
Our understanding of ‘Urban transformation’ as the
integrated within flexible contexts, the vision of BUDD
evolution and production of space in direct response to
Charrette proposal can be divided into five challenging
the converging forces of external actors and the internal
orientations and objectives:
needs of the people and their diverse livelihoods, stands
as the central element of our proposal.
I. Bettering the system of provision to meet basic
This definition of a propitious transformative process
needs in Dharavi, to mitigate the problematic
disputes the DRP’s basis and priorities. We perceive the
living conditions as experienced by the most
multiple needs of the community as paramount, thus
vulnerable sectors of the community.
explaining why our programme aims to incorporate the
city needs within Dharavi such as the creation of new
II. Assuring the prosperity of an environment
residential stock, the extension of the BKC as a growing
that recognises the livelihoods of the citizens of
financial centre, new commercial development, etc.
Dharavi, to allow the urban form to be flexible
instead of trying to force the needs of Dharavi into a
to diverse and changing needs by adapting to
plan which is clearly detached from the current setting.
them through time.
Although this strategy seems to distance itself from
the policy framework supporting the current plans for
III. Equipping Dharavi with a political
Dharavi’s redevelopment, is actually in line with the
framework which supports the creation of a
National Housing Policy

066 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

 physical environment highlighting the capacity,
diversity and resilience of the community in
place, in order to assure the progression of its
character.
IV. Integrating elements of the formal city into
Dharavi so as to dilute the differences between
the ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ city to ultimately
eliminate the stigma associated with Dharavi.
V. Integrating development areas that cater
to the needs of the middle-class and private
market, so as to reconcile the needs of
Mumbai and those of Dharavi while making
the cross-subsidisation of the redevelopment
projects possible.
6.2.2 The Concept
In order to realise our objectives as stated in our
revisited vision, we have developed a concept that
recognises the need for pluralism and inclusion. The
wide range of solutions produced is reflective of our
contrasting and complimentary conceptual strategies.
The concept supports our definition of transformation
while trying to manoeuvre within the restrictive
framework of the DRP.
The map found in Figure 6.12, inspired by our
vision of Dharavi, aims to conceptualise our proposed
interventions:
• Opening Dharavi to Mumbai, as illustrated by the
burgundy arrows
• Blending in the differences between the ‘formal’ and
‘informal’ city, as illustrated by the smaller green and
yellow arrows
• Creating high-density zones at strategic
points in Dharavi (near the three train stations located
around Dharavi, and near the Bandra Kurla Complex),
where high-rise structures intended for the private sector
will be located
• Conservation of the vernacular character of the historical/
central zone of Dharavi by proposing interventions
inspired by existing urban forms
• Introducing a transitional zone between Dharavi’s
historic centre and the proposed high density zone
to harmonise the cityscape while allowing for vertical
redevelopment schemes to be strategically located.
Figure 6.12 conceptual proposals map
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 067
To achieve this, the concept presented in this section
diverges from the DRP in 4 important ways:
I. Abandonment of 5 sector division:
This departure from the DRP attempts to
successfully translate the unique social, cultural,
economic and spatial character of each nagar
into the proposal, building on existing resources.
It allows for development that recognises Dharavi
as one place instead of an amalgamation of 5
sub-zones. It also allows for a development that
is incremental and informed by its own process as
opposed to the proposed model which has been
created to allow for the simultaneous development
of five zones by as many actors, all in isolation from
one another.
II. Abandonment of the FSI regulatory tool:
The FSI regulatory tool in place, which prescribes
a global floor space index of 4.0 for the whole
of Dharavi, presents unnecessary constraints
and backs up unsupportable densities. It is not
reflective of the needs or reality of Dharavi, but
rather of the interests of the private sector.
III. Recognition of the migrants living and working
in Dharavi:
This addition to the plan comes as a response to
our recognition of the role of migrants in Dharavi’s
complex and diverse lexis. It plans for the needs of
the most vulnerable portion of the population and
in this sense it also pertains to the goal behind the
SRA to eliminate slums in Mumbai.
IV. Redefinition of the role of the community in the
planning and redevelopment:
This second addition to the current plan is proposed
in order to assure that the development of Dharavi
is representative of the true needs and aspirations
of the community. It ensures the sustainability of
what is being provided while fostering feelings of
ownership by the community in regards to both
the product and the process.
6.2.3 Redevelopment Strategies
As recognition of the multidimensional character of
the needs of the citizens of Dharavi, our redevelopment
strategies propose a wide range of interventions. The
068 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
concept proposes options that reflect the needs of
the current citizens of Dharavi, the migrants and those
of Mumbai as a whole, instead of a ‘one size fits all’
approach.
Based on the analysis of multiple findings gathered
in the field, our program recognises four broader
architectural typologies and associates each of them with
a number of morphological typologies currently existing
in Dharavi. The idea is first to link each architectural type
to a specific function, such as home-based economies,
manufacturing activities, residential units, and so forth,
and second, to establish coupling between architectural
forms and urban layouts (morphological typologies).
These relationships between urban and building
forms are much less diametrical as we acknowledge
that architectural forms should be associated with as
many types of urban tissues as possible (Figure 6.13). We
judge this to be especially important for the residential
units as we recognise the importance of exterior spaces
and their different uses among different communities.
The variant architectural types are associated with a
range of morphological tissues, allowing an array of
spatial configurations.
Policy Matrix
In order to recognise and understand the complex
policy environment created by the DRP, we have
designed a policy matrix in which each of our four
proposals are placed, highlighting the new condition of
policy needed making evident our position in contrast
to the current policy sphere
6.2.4 Process of Citizen Involvement
Before the elaboration of a detailed plan for the
redevelopment of Dharavi, it is essential to develop
options that address the needs of the citizens therein.
These options should come as a result of direct field
observations, surveys and exchanges, and the direct
involvement of the community (Figure 6.14). The
question of participation introduces complexities as it
ventures into integrating grassroots participation in a
framework that operates from the top-down. The scale
of the project brings about a new level of complexity.
The scheme we have developed to implicate citizens
in the process has required concessions in order to be
achievable. It is separated into three different phases,
each of them associated with a different time frame and
level of citizen involvement:
 Figure 6.13 development strategy schema
The main morphological typologies found in Dharavi will be conserved in the central zone in order to minimise the disruption of the milieu. Although
changes of the urban form will occur, our intention is to allow the community to continue living in a place where the urban tissue and layout of open spaces
reflects the needs as well or better than it currently does.

Figure 6.14 process of community involvement

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 069

I. First Stage:
The first stage starts with research and analysis by
a professional team (NGO, development practitioners;
internal or external to the community). These findings
will then inform the design and layout options which
architects and planners will elaborate and develop. The
design and creation of a wide range of options will be
done in collaboration with citizen group representatives.
These representatives will be large enough in number
to ensure an accurate and symbolic representation of
a variety of communities. The interactions at this phase
are circular and continuous. The citizen representatives
and the designers will work as a team to elaborate
options, before presenting them to other citizens and
communities. First stage

II. Second Stage:

In the second stage, citizens will be given options
to choose from in order to assure that he/she is being
provided with an alternative that fits his/her needs. Firstly,
citizens will decide which architectural typology fits his/
her needs best. Secondly, each person will be given
layout options so that the interior spaces are adapted to
the requirements of the future owner/renter. Informative
posters will be displayed around Dharavi, which will
illustrate in 2D (plan) and 3D illustrations (renderings) the
possible options for each type, as shown in Figure 6.15.
In addition, full-scale model units (proto-types) will be
built and opened to the public to visit. Each family will
then be given the opportunity to choose a unit layout.
In this stage, the unit recipients will also make explicit
their preference in term of urban layout (morphological
typology).

Second stage
III. Third Stage:
In the last stage of this process of citizen involvement,
the preferences of the people will be compiled. With this
information, the designers (architects + planners) will
develop a plan for Dharavi that accommodates the needs
and choices of citizens. The proportion of each typology
and layout to be built will be directly informed by the
previous stage.

Third stage

070 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

 Figure 6.15 layout options poster

Figure 6.16 urban density map

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

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 071

6.2.5 Catalogue
As our proposal recognises the need for forms that
vary according to functions, we have developed four
typologies for our conceptual catalogue as illustrated in
(Figure 6.16)

A. Home-Based Units
Description
This is a low-density typology, with buildings ranging
from G+3 to G+5. They are located in inner areas of
Dharavi in order to preserve the existing streetscape.
The typology focuses on households with home-based
businesses, and is concentrated in the southern area of
Chambda Bazaar.

Current Situation
The proposal keeps the ground floor as retail use. It Figure 6.17 current situation

can be used by individual owners for selling products, or

it can be rented out to other tenants (Figure 6.17). The
shop fronts along the street are intended to preserve the
street view of Chambda Bazaar, while the first floor holds
the living space – a 300 square foot unit. This typology is
designed to sustain the current livelihoods of residents
with home-based activities.
From the analysis, some of the activities require larger
spaces with higher headroom, thus units with higher
headroom are proposed. This high ceiling unit enables
multiplicity, allowing citizens with diverse aspirations
to be accommodated. The larger headroom also allow
mezzanine floor to be built.

Concept
The fundamental concept of this typology is to
separate the working space from the living space (Figure
6.18). However, instead of dividing the working space Figure 6.18 proposed space-use arrangement
and living space into two units, a vertical separation is
proposed to keep the two spaces within one unit.
Currently, many people live within a crowded house
along with their products and materials. The same space
can be used for many purposes. This means that when
some family members are working, others cannot sleep
or be involved in other family activities. The mezzanine
floor is proposed to create a vertical separation while
providing privacy to some of the family members. The
household can use the mezzanine as working space with
the first floor as living space or vice versa. Figure 6.19 Place policy matrix

072 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

Policy
This adjusts the government’s policy as demonstrated
in the DRP (Figure 6.19). It abandons the podium and
high-rise typology. The convergence of livelihood
space and living space is recognised. Unlike the DRP,
productive activities will not occur under a podium-level.
The proposed typology maintains the 14 foot headroom
proposed in the DRP for commercial units. The retail
spaces are directly on the ground floor instead of raised
on the podium level, and the layout is designed in a
collaborative manner with community representatives
and the leaders of some of the home based industries.
Households can then choose their desired layout from
several options.

B. Work-Based Units
Figure 6.20 migrant’s use of space
Description sale

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

raw material
is designed for small, medium and large manufacturing production

industries in Dharavi and their workers. The concept

behind this typology is to recognise the needs of
these thriving industries, which are central to Dharavi’s
functioning. It proposes the grouping of small industries
by including the retail, production and living aspect of Figure 6.21 production Networks
these industries in the spatial design. These units will be
located in the lowest density zone of Dharavi. Inspired
by the existing manufacturing clusters in Dharavi, these
work-based clusters will most often be organised around
open spaces.

Current Situation
Dharavi’s economy is fuelled by small and medium
industries, which often process goods from raw Figure 6.22 separation of spatial use
materials to the final product. Often owned by local
residents, these industries mainly employ migrants
who come to Mumbai for work to earn money then
sent back to their villages. More often then not, these
migrants readapt the workspace at night to use as a
living/sleeping space. They often work, sleep and eat
in the same interior space, as illustrated in Figure 6.20
These industries are often grouped by phases of the
commercial process (production, resale, retail, etc.), but
not by types of goods sold/produced. Therefore this
has additional transportation needs (and costs) since
the materials are transported between clusters as they Figure 6.23 Place policy matrix
progress from raw materials to end products ready to

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 073

be sold. Although this cost is rather minimal and the
distances travelled are small, it adds up to significant
sums in this setting of financial constraints. What is more,
these numerous deliveries add pressure and congestion
to already strained transportation infrastructure.
Concept
The concept is to spatially group sub-industries and
separate spatial uses at the scale of the units. At the scale
of Dharavi, we are proposing the creation of clusters
where all phases of production are integrated. This would
minimise the costs of the final goods, while allowing these
small industries to gain recognition by partnering with
the other members of the same industry (Figure 6.21).
At the scale of the unit itself, our concept suggests a
vertical segregation of function within each work-based
cluster. The ground floor will be reserved for direct resale
to customers and retailers, while the first floor will be
used to process raw materials. The second floor will be
used for the processing of raw material into the finished
product. This has been located on the second floor as
we expect the processed material to be easier to move
vertically than the raw material.
Lastly, we are proposing separate accommodation
on the top most floors of these work-based units (Figure
6.22). This separation is crucial for the betterment of the
livelihoods of the migrant population of Dharavi working
in the manufacturing sector. This residential section
should take the shape of accommodations, and has been
inspired by college residences. They will be around 100
square feet each. Common areas (kitchen, living area,
and toilet) will be located on each floor.
Policy
At a policy level, this proposal departs from the DRP at
one additional level; it does not comply with the podium
typology (Figure 6.23). This distance in comparison to
the DRP is essential in maintaining the character of the
historic centre of Dharavi. It also adds to the DRP as it
integrates rental stock to the plan in order to house the
migrant workers. This is essential for the amelioration
of poor living conditions, and to assure that new slums
are not created outside the limits of the redevelopment
area.
074 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
C. High-Rise (Rehabilitation)
Description
This typology varies from G+5 to G+7 in height and
aims to house rehabilitated families. These mid-rise
buildings will be located near the edges of Dharavi,
serving as a buffer zone between the high rise buildings
near train stations and the low rise units in the centre of
Dharavi.
Current Situation
This typology has emerged for two major purposes,
the first of which is to improve the living conditions
of the current inhabitants. The living conditions are
not desirable at the moment, as hutment dwellers
live in overcrowded houses with inadequate basic
infrastructure, both physical and social. Piped water is
not guaranteed and the sewer capacity is not enough to
extract rainwater from the street during the monsoon
period. By centralising the residential area, infrastructure
can be provided in a more systematic fashion. A central
pump room in each building will provide clean water
to each unit at sufficient pressure to the highest floor.
Sewers from each unit will collect the wastewater and
discharge it to the district sewer system of Dharavi.
The second purpose of this typology is to free up the
space for private residential development. Right now,
squatters are distributed throughout all of Dharavi, with
most of them living in two storey houses. By stacking
these houses in a vertical manner, the footprint of the
building can be reduced (Figure 6.24). With higher FSI,
the same footprint area can allow more floor space and
thus cater to more households. The saved space can be
utilised for high-rise private housing, discussed in the
following section, which will cross-subsidise the cost of
the development.
Concept
The units are designed to preserve and nurture
economic and social networks. This typology is also
designed to maximise the communal space on each
floor, allowing women and children to gather easily
outside their units. The space can be a common corridor
or atrium with a large opening to allow natural lighting
and ventilation. People can retain the activities carried
out in front of their hutments, such as drying food or
clothes.
Each household is provided with a unit of 300 square
feet, most of which is living area (Figure 6.25). From
our analysis, a large number of households have been
able to adapt the space and allow small-scale home-
based production, such as jewellery making and
flower selling, inside their homes. This type of house is
therefore suitable for families not requiring large spaces
specifically for livelihood use.

Policy
In terms of policy, this rehabilitation typology is in line
with the DRP. The only variation is the abandonment of
the above ground podium (Figure 6.26). The residential
units are built directly on the ground floor instead of
the raised podium level. Like the other typologies, the Figure 6.24 current situation

layout will be designed by the architect and KRVIA with

a feedback loop from community representatives. After
the scheme design of the floor plan, each household
will be able to choose from a number of layout options.

D. High-Rise (Private Sector)

Description
Understanding the need for cross-subsidised Figure 6.25 proposed arrangement
development, we believe that the presence of high-rise
buildings in Dharavi is a symbiotic alternative that serves
the private market as well as the citizens of Dharavi.
Such a typology is quite disruptive to the organic way
in which Dharavi has been developed, with heights of
G+15 to G+30 and residential units ranging from 500 -
700 square Feet. Therefore, it is to be implemented only
on the periphery of Dharavi. These peripheral zones have
been identified based on their unique advantages, such
as their proximity to railway stations and main roads.
This will help to integrate part of Dharavi to the greater
urban fabric while protecting and providing continuity
to the activities currently inherent in its centre.

Current Situation
An idea has emerged to attract a new flow of high
income groups currently living and working in different
sectors of the city with the new offices and commercial
activities to be supplied. Dharavi would help to release
pressure in the busy southern area of Mumbai while
Figure 6.26 Place policy matrix
including itself in the wider urban fabric through the
facilitation of a “growth centre” that the city demands
(Figure 6.27).

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 075

Concept
Our vision for Dharavi in the skyline of the city is
a smooth transition from vertical structures, already
imposed by the proximity of the planned Bandra Kurla
Complex to horizontal ones. This new typology in the
area works as a liminal space that absorbs all the external
forces the city of Mumbai exerts over this sector and
translates them into new signals, allowing the residents
of the interior to creatively adapt to the challenges of the
new urban environment. The inclusion of this category
of building, along with the other three we identify in
this scenario, provides continuity to the natural image
of Dharavi. The buildings are thought of as creators of
new spatialities within Dharavi and of new residential
stock for the rest of the city (Figure 6.28). Commercial
activities in the buildings will be supported by a range
of multiple services such as hotels, restaurants, theatres,
convention halls, etc. giving to outsiders another
Figure 6.27 current situation (Bandra-Kurla complex)
appreciation of Dharavi’s resources. The development
of these structures will thwart the current pressures of
large-scale development applied by the government,
while improving the living conditions of residents and
resolving spatial and density issues in Mumbai.

Policy
The ground level podium proposed in the DRP as the
new public surface for the whole area of Dharavi is wholly
rejected in this vision (Figure 6.29). Alternatively, we
suggest the integration of more human scale podiums
that enrich the spaces at ground level of particular
individual buildings. In this way the new vertical clusters
will offer different alternatives that will help to reinforce
the character of each place.

Figure 6.28 proposed arrangement

P RP
DR
D RP rom D RP rom D
h t f to f
wit en on tion
n line ju stm dditi e t rac
I Ad A R

High Rise (Rehabilitation)

Work-base units

Home-base economies

Figure 6.29 Place policy matrix

076 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism

6.2.6 Conclusion
The conceptual catalogue we have created is reflective
of our concept and illustrative of our criticism of the
current DRP. Although we recognise the need to
accommodate the needs of Mumbai in Dharavi, we
challenge the singular form proposed by the DRP and
propose densities that are more adapted to the needs
of the community in place. As we argue for policies to
be informed by the reality of specific places, we propose
a progressive approach to transformation that is
directly linked with the context, and that prioritises the
community before other stakeholders.

REFERENCES

Arnstein Sherry, 1969. A ladder of participation. Journal of the American

Association. Vol 35, nº4.

Desai Vandana, 1995. Community participation and slum housing: A case

study of Bombay. Sage Publications, London.

Keivani R. & Werna E., 2001. Models of housing provision in developing

countries. Progress in planning 55, pp.65-118.

Patel Shirish, 1997. Urban Planning by Objectives. Economic and Political

Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 16 (Apr. 19-25), pp. 822-826. [http://www.jstor.org/
stable/4405308]

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

Rocheleau D., Slocum R., 1995. Participation in context: key questions. In

Power process and participation: tools for change. ITDG, London, pp.17-
30.

DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 077

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

As the DRP takes a lead role in the transformation of Dharavi, are the correct priorities being set in place regarding
the diversity of citizens and livelihoods? Do the policy processes that regulate social transition and physical
manifestation allow for flexibility and adaptation over time? Does the ‘world class city’ vision align with historical
trends, current realities, and future predictions?
 As illustrated in the analysis and scenarios,
the situation in Mumbai, and specifically
Dharavi, is rife with conflicting voices, visions
and concerns of an indeterminate future.
Operating within this contested scene,
under the premise of offering practical and
alternative proposals for redevelopment,
provided great challenges not only in regards
to our daily production, but also our own
perceptions of what it means to engage in such
environments as a practitioner, two concepts
that will be discussed herein, followed by
a conceptualisation of present and future
Mumbai. Addressing these challenges amidst
exposed realities and notions of a context
existing in a constant state of flux yielded a
continuous reassessment of methodologies
and aproach. Our adaptability in response to
reality checks and surprises thus emerged as
an essential element throughout the process.
7.1 Critical Perceptions
Recognising that our introduction and research into
the case of Dharavi was initiated remotely in London,
heavily based on literature reviews, lectures and media
presentations, the idea of questioning critical perceptions
carries a two-fold nature. First, the stereotypical images
and definitions used to represent ‘slums’ are, at best,
criminally one-sided, making it very difficult to actually
comprehend the essence of an area under question
without setting foot on the ground. While the expected
squalor, sub-standard infrastructure conditions and
overcrowding exists, also revealed is a lively, adaptive,
resilient community driven by fruitful assets of human and
economic capital. Thus our conceptual understanding of
‘slum’ is/was called into evolving question.
Equally fundamental in terms of general perception
lay the character and relationship dynamics between key
actors. In this case, pre-trip actor mapping was carried
out to provide a basis for our understanding of the
context. While the initial links and ideals of the individual
actors remained relatively consistent, the revelations
uncovered during our meetings in terms of divergent
visions, motivations and concerns had a significant
effect on our daily reflections and understandings. The
influence that an individual can have on the institution or
organisation they represent, and thus on the subsequent
unfolding of a situation, an important variable to be
acknowledged. For example, Gautam Chatterjee’s reign
at the helm of MHADA has seen the appointment of
an Expert Advisory Panel to the DRP, illustrating some
degree of desire for inclusive representation in discussing
080 DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism
SPARC, our facilitator and liaison, was paramount in
connecting us with Mr. Chatterjee as well as other key
actors, thus becoming in many ways a lens through
which the situation manifested itself. A slightly
conflictive element lies in the fact that SPARC has a
significant presence within this context, requiring that
their existence receive the same critical attention given
to another. What became important for our work was the
balancing of our own evolving perceptions as outsiders
and temporary ‘partners’ alongside their experienced
position - working through known compromises and
levels of bureaucratic rigidity in order to achieve a
holistic view.
A major element in reaching the latter resides in
recognising the various degrees by which people and
organisations measure success. Resulting from our case
study research of the in-situ redevelopment projects
we acknowledge our own critical gauge of the level of
their success. Did they appropriately address the needs
and desires of individuals as transition took place?
This opinion, much like our independent perceptions,
contrasts with that of SPARC, coming to light during
our conversations with Sheela Patel, whose stated self-
designated capacities attempted to offer explanations
in regard to decisions, outcomes, and future plans.
Simultaneously, we realised the contrasting measure of
success as gauged by MHADA and MCGM. Coming to
terms with these differing opinions in our own minds, we
formed a critical view towards a need to redefine means
of success in relation to an actor’s future capacity.
7.2 Balancing the Real and Academic
Our presence in Mumbai was one of evolving
duality. There we found ourselves thrust into what we
have referred to as a conflictive environment, which is
shockingly real and heavily debated the world over, but
also magnified on the ground within Dharavi. Like two
sides of a coin we were both an academic institution
bringing with it strong concepts of theoretical study,
and in an instance, professionals with expected
capacity to envision change. The exposure to realities
of sacrificial negotiation compounded as we attempted
to deliver a ‘real’, practical solution within a determined
policy and typological framework. As seen in Scenario
1, we conceded to the guidelines of the DRP, while
asserting critical responsive alternatives in regards to
the transformation of social well-being and livelihoods.
Relating directly to our analysis, we questioned the
scenario largely based on a planning driven initiative for
the whole of Dharavi. Working with certain established
policy provisions, this scenario departed dramatically
from the current DRP, especially in terms of physical
typology and the five sector parcel zoning. It also
critically addressed policy guidelines and strategic
processes of participation under the same vision as
Scenario 1. The basis for working through this second
scenario stemmed directly from the theoretical
concepts and methodology related to prior projects
undertaken throughout the BUDD course, working
within a greater room for manoeuvre and the edge of
academic freedom.
The concept of duality as witnessed in the nature of
our existence in Mumbai, and represented appropriately
in our complementing scenarios, calls to mind the
question of the practitioner’s role. Practitioners bring
with them a knowledge capacity formed, in our case,
by academic training and situational experience.
Fundamental to the practitioner’s cause is their ability
to apply restraint under the notion that each situation is
unique and requires a level of initial debriefing. Finding
ourselves within a new, complex environment, full of
challenge and cultural exchange, sparked reality checks
and questioning of value systems. It was imperative for
us to stay grounded and observe the situation and the
‘checks and balances’ therein - what is there, what is not
there. In order to achieve the goals we set for ourselves,
much attention was given to deciphering the feedback
mechanisms in place and how we could position
ourselves within them. Fortunately, in many cases, our
presence was respectfully regarded and rarely called
into critical question. It was important for us to then
use this allowance and platform to understand our role
in offering a truly valuable contribution that enriches
lives and on a larger scale and illustrates alternative
solutions for the transformation of Dharavi.
7.3 Beyond Mumbai - Conceptualizing Place and
its Future
The previous arguments regarding professional
field experience, the academic realm and how that
relates to the role of practitioner, illustrate a needed
balance in order to maintain a high standard of
reflection and implementation. For if one dismisses
theoretical methodology in favour of mere respect for
the uniqueness of place, a valuable opportunity may be
missed and standards may be affected. It is possible the
same idea could then be applied when conceptualising
a situation or place.
As it stands now, Mumbai and Dharavi have lived
under a microscope of analysis and study since the early
1990s. The multitude of institutions, organisations and
professionals offering services and producing alternative
visions amplifies daily. In fact, our visit marks the fourth
consecutive year the Development Planning Unit has
conducted research in the city. It can easily be said that
Dharavi is in itself becoming a concept resource model,
representing contested urbanism and the general
subject of slum upgrading and redevelopment. Just
as Los Angeles and Las Vegas have become urban
ideologies, through Mike Davis’s City of Quartz and
Venturi’s Learning from Las Vegas, so too has Mumbai
(Dharavi) become an international breeding ground for
debate and research. This argument also manifests in the
recent release of the film Slumdog Millionaire, where a
world audience now has a hyper image mechanism and
conversation piece to attach with the concept of slum
and the city of Mumbai.
Despite Dharavi’s fertility in containing the complexities
and contradictions that appeal to professionals and
academics alike, we must not forget that it is a living,
breathing place without the fantastic nature and allure of
Los Angeles or the stylized adult playground of Las Vegas.
The truth of Dharavi lies in its extreme situation of conflict.
Its appeal as a resource parallels the struggles of daily
survival, the necessity for attention and solutions that can
humanise conditions that are anything but. This report
clearly illustrates there is much more to Dharavi than its
poverty stricken conditions, as it flourishes with economic
richness, communal and family oriented networks and
traditions, which breathe and sustain a diversity of life
into the area. In this case is Dharavi underrepresented?
Do those who have spent their time and energy in using
the area as a resource really understand the totality of
place or have they picked upon the tragic complexities
in order to justify a grandiose urban vision? In response
to this, again we assert that an appropriate balance
needs to be achieved in order to inform both experience
and subsequent proposals that will lead to inclusive
transformative outcomes for individuals and the city as
a whole.
The questions we ask here, in light of the declared
desire for Mumbai to reach ‘world class city’ status, hark
back to our stated conceptual framework criteria and
vision. As the DRP takes a lead role in the transformation
of Dharavi, are the correct priorities being set in place
regarding the diversity of its citizens and livelihoods?
Do the policy processes that regulate social transition
and physical manifestation allow for flexibility and
adaptation over time? Does the ‘world class city’ vision
align with historical trends, current realities, and future
predictions?
At present there seems to be great disjunction between
grand expectations and acknowledged reality. The two
scenarios we have proposed strive to bridge these stated
expectations with the realities of daily social and economic
activity. By addressing policy implications alongside basic
necessities for sustaining and transforming community
and livelihoods within a strategically planned urban
landscape, we foretell the establishing of Dharavi as a
pulsating heart of Mumbai, rather than an area branded
with informality and poverty, whose future is determined
in regards to land value and market trends alone. The
character of Dharavi, as we have illustrated, is much more
powerful than that.
REFERENCES
Davis Mike, 2006. City of quartz: excavating the future in Los Angeles. Verso
Books.
Venturi et al. 1977. Learning from Las Vegas: the forgotten symbolism of
architectural form. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
DHARAVI a case of contested urbanism 081
RAJIV INDIRA

B
 Appendix
interview templates

Rajiv indira & Bharat janata

Chambda bazaar
Locating Home-based activities
Manufacturing activities
Retail activities

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

How did you become aware of the Bharat Janata/Rajiv

Indira rehabilitation process?
Were you involved in the design process of the units?
How? (Establish level of participation) Interview

How has the new home met your needs compared to

your last home? (Meeting expectations)
Do you have more or less space than you originally
had? Have you been able to adapt the space to meet
your needs?
Did you rent a room where you lived before?
How did you decide where you live, which floor-
location? (Understand power dynamics and diversity-
space relationship)
Do you make use of the communal spaces? Are they
adequate for your communal needs?
Where do the children go to school? Where do they
play after school?
How do you feel living in a high-rise building?
How do you move into Dharavi and outside?
Where do/es the earner/s in the home work? How did
the move affect this? (Unpack this spatially – where
raw materials are from)
Have you heard about redevelopment plans for
Dharavi? If yes, what do you think about the plan? If
no, what do you think should change in Dharavi?
Thank you for your time. Do you have some questions
for us?
 Interview profile 01

RAJIV INDIRA
Ground floor, flat #3
Photos

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

Spatial experience /use

Lived in 200 sq. ft. one storey hut before. Would have
expanded home if in huts: need more space now as kids
are older. Mezzanine largely used as storage, sometimes
kids study there.

Design involvement
No, 11 people (members of the society committee)
made the decisions, they had 4 meetings to discuss the
building. Hariharan knew they would get 10x12 feet
space, didn’t feel right to ask for more, felt they were
getting a lot.
Sketches

Community relationship
No change. More space before for kids to play before –
not much open space in Rajiv Indira. Now play in open
space nearby or at school.

Like most / like least

Society gives order, maintenance, discipline. Cleaner
and more convenient, don’t have to collect water. /
Should not hunt for problems; feels fortunate to have
what he has.
 Interview profile 02

RAJIV INDIRA
First floor, flat #102

Photos

MRS. SAFI CUN NIZAM

Approximate age: 50s
Household size: 7 (husband, sons, daughter-in-law, child)
Years in Dharavi: 55 years, originally from Alahabad
Work activities: Son is a tailor in Kutiwari

Spatial experience /use

Previous house was bigger, 10 people lived there. Had a
large open space outside, ex-tended space of the house.
Relatives often stayed and worked in Dharavi, slept in
this area. It was part of a la rger area, part of which was
shared communal space.

Design involvement
Design plans were prepared, society members did
not have to provide their opinions. Builder promised
to remove the slums, they did this. They showed the
Sketches
community the plans, the community didn’t have input,
they were happy with what they were getting.

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

Like most / like least

Less quarrels, more private space.
Before they had more open space, more room – here
they are more restricted.
 Interview profile 03

RAJIV INDIRA

Fourth floor Photos

MR. SUBIAH
Approximate age: 40s
Household size: 5 (Wife, two sons, one daughter)
Years in Dharavi: 40, before came from Tamil Nadu
Work activities: home based potato vadha makers

Spatial experi ence /use

Half flat was full of potato and veg., space organised
according to chain of production. Have more space
now, able to have equipment. Aspiration of son is to
have own shop.

Design involvement
Family was one of 20 project affected peoples relocated
to Rajiv Indira.
They were not involved in the building design.
Sketches

Community relationship
No problems with neigh-bours. Nothing changed. No
communal space, always working, do not meet with
others in building.

Like most / like least

Less quarrels, more private space.
Before they had more open space, more room – here
they are more restricted.
 Interview profile 04

RAJIV INDIRA

Fourth floor, 421

Photos

MRS. VENI NAIDOO

Approximate age: 60 - 70 years old
Household size: 6 (husband, son, daughters, grandchild)
Years in Dharavi: 20, originally from Andhra Pradesh
Work activities: Husband and son are tailors

Spatial experi ence /use

More space than before, but quite unhappy not to have
the loft space - not aware they wouldn’t have this. When
son gets married will have to move out as there is not
enough space, but cannot afford rent.

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

Community relationship
The house is better but the community life is totally
different than before. The relationship between us was
much easier, people’s doors were always open and we
saw each other every day. Now doors locked, people
live more in their own houses.

Like most / like least

Unhappy not to have the mezzanine space
 Interview profile 05

RAJIV INDIRA
First floor, flat #109

Photos

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

Spatial experience /use

Have more space and a better division of it here. Before
used to cook in front of guests, now has kitchen. Drying
clothes used to drip on top of them. Mezzanine space
used mostly as storage area, for guests and for kids to
sleep if sick.

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

Sketches
Community relationship
Has maintained contact with friends / neighbours.
Normal gathering space they have is not enough when
it is time for festivals and celebrations. Go to temples
instead when they need a big space, but would prefer
to have space in Rajiv Indira.

Like most / like least

Likes the high ceilings the most, much cleaner. Could
be a bit bigger.
 Interview profile 06

BHARAT JANATA

flat 202 Photos

Mrs Devi
Approximate age: early 20s
Household size: 6 (mother, 3 brothers, sister-in-law, son)
Years in Dharavi: 15 years
Work activities: making plastic bags, husband loads leather
on/off trucks in Dharavi, mother packages school bags, one
brother works at a bank

Spatial experience /use

Flat is bigger than what they used to have. They redid
did the tiling when they got the flat. The walls were
bare and needed a lot of work.

Design involvement
Mother used to go to the meetings discussing the Bharat
Janata housing. She had the option to either accept
the flat free of cost, or alternately, accept a financial
compensation.

Community relationship
Likes living in the huts more than the building; they
had more freedom before. For example, kids could
play anywhere and the space outside was part of their
homes. As the brother lost contact with all his friends
from the huts, he also feels like it was better before
when they wre all together.

Like most / like least

Mother and brothers prefer living in the flat. They have
a sense of peace as the house is theirs. They can’t think
of anything in particular that is bad abour BJ.
 Interview profile 07

BHARAT JANATA

flat 206

Photos

Mr FRANCIS & Mrs BASTIME

Approximate age: early 40s
Household size: 4 (18yr old sun + 10yr old daughter)
Years in Dharavi: 20-25 years
Work activities: Francis, mechanical driver in Worli.
Bastime, housekeeper in Mahim

Spatial experience /use

Francis: he is happy with the new home. Lots of trouble
in the hut.
Bastime: she has less space than before, she had two
rooms before.

Design involvement
Francis is part of cooperative society commitee. He saw
the plan, agreed to 225 ft2. Did not talk to architect.
“Community should tell builder what they want but the
community needs to be strong (organised)” Francis

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

Like most / like least

Bastime Like most: utilities, particularly tap water.
Like the least: the quality of construction materials
(degradation of the wall in the bathroom and kitchen).
 Interview profile 08

BHARAT JANATA

Photos

flat 206

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

Spatial experi ence /use

Got more of less what they were promised. Have more
space than before. Before they lived with uncle’s family,
now they have their own space. It is nice to live in the
building.

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

Community relationship
Punuwasi and childrens meets friends downstairs, on
ground floor.
They have friends also around Dharavi. They meet at
people’s houses/huts.

Like most / like least

Like the most: Punuwasi says everyone has own space,
so no fights anymore People stay in their house, live by
society rules. Don’t have water problems like before.
Son would like a space to play cricket. He does not like
the poor quality of building.
 Interview profile 09

BHARAT JANATA
Photos
flat 405

Mrs Razia Akbar

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

Spatial experience /use

Water does not come every day as promised. She uses
the tank when there is no water from tap.
Flat is about four times smaller than what they used to
have before.
Father and mother-in-law lived in the house.

Design involvement
Before society was founded, didn’t have a role to play.
Mostly Razia’s father-in-law and husband were involved
in the BJ building process. She didn’t go to any meetings
and never saw the plans. Razia knew there was only 225
square feet so she was not expecting anything more.

Community relationship
Relationships haven’t changed much. Friends come
to their home as there is no specific public/open space
that they can use.
Kids play in corridor with the neighbouring kids.

Like most / like least

She feels happier staying in the building. It is much
better than living in the huts they used to have prior to
moving to Bharat Janata
 Interview profile 10

Like most / like least

BHARAT JANATA Relations in the community was better before, but here
the house is better. Much better staying here, used to
have flooding with the rain, now much more comfortable.
Environment is quiet, not too much noise.

flat 402
Photos

Mrs SHANAM
Approximate age: early 40s
Household size: 3 (1 daughter, 23 yrs old, 1 son, 17 yrs old)
Years in Dharavi: 30 years
Work activities: Daughter used to work in a courier office, since
father died, 10 months ago, she has stopped working Father
used to work in railways.

Spatial experi ence /use

The space is about the same as the one they had before
but is divided differently; their previous house had
2 rooms. Upgrated their flat: tiled floors, walls and
kitchen, all done very nicely, for the cost of 1.5 lakhs.
When they got the house, cement/mud was falling off. .

Design involvement
Husband was a member of the society committee,
Shanam got informed on the process through him.
Building was due to be built almost 15 years back. They
were shown the plans but did not direclty participate to
the design process. Promised a marriage hall, different
spaces for religious activities, other spaces for specific
functions – none of this was manifested in the final Sketches
product.

Community relationship
Daughter: Liked living in transit camp as there was a
sense of community there. In BJ, society rule disallows
religious practice outside the home; they were given the
building and house, but not their vital social network.
Before, living in the huts, they had more open and
communal spaces.
Every evening around 6pm Shanam goes downstairs,
to ground floor of BJ, where she gathers with the other
women to socialize.
 Interview profile 11

BHARAT JANATA

flat 302
Photos

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

Spatial experience /use

Interviewee used to have twice the space; same floor
area but in a two storey building. To maximize usage
of space, no furniture is kept in the house, the wooden
panes are set up across the room and the panels are
removed at night to sleep on the floor.

Design involvement
Not involved in design.

Community relationship
Relationship change: people who used to live
immediately around Samsuddin in the huts have been
relocated throughout the city. Social relations have
been affected; his neighbours are not people he knew
before. If has time to socialize, he goes to his friend’s
houses whom are involved with the same type of work
as he is.

Like most / like least

He is satisfied with his current arrangement as the
current work space is of better quality than the old one
(well ventilated and provides basic amenities. )
 Interview profile 12

BHARAT JANATA
6th floor
Photos

Mrs Devar Kripa

Approximate age: early 40s
Household size: 4 (hsband, son and son’s wife)
Years in Dharavi: 34 years
Work activities: Vegetable seller, Husband is watchman

Spatial experi ence /use

Water shortage is a problem. They have a tank, but when
it empties out, they have to go collect water and carry
it up to the flat. Had a very small house before, much
smaller than the one they have now.

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

Community relationship
Prior to the move, they had been together for a long time,
and were happy with their relation with neighbours.
Now in BJ, no one asks what is happening, people live
inside their house, they keep doors closed.

Like most / like least

Now they live in the building and are happy.
But feel that there is not enough open space. The walls
of building are of poor quality. The space they got is too
small for their extended family.
Chambda Bazaar

Home-based Activities

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

Do your neighbours help you with your business?

Do the other members of your family work with you?

Do you have workers and do they live here too?

Have you expanded your house over time to help

you with your business?

How do you sell your items?

What are your plans for your children?

Will they take over your business when they grow up?

Is the economic activity limited by restricted service

provision? Would more water or electrical provision
expand the business or change the type of business?

For how many generations has your family been

involved in this type of business?

What are your thoughts and expectations of the DRP?

 Interview profile 13

Photos

Drum maker [family]

14 people in the house (it is a joint family)
He has 5 brothers
2 women, 4 men present during our interview
They’ve been there for 60-70 years / 3 generations

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

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

About DRP
If he moves, he thinks his business will stop and he will
lose his network of customers
He has a sense of place and belonging here, he was
quite emotional about the DRP and moving
 Interview profile 14

Photos

Food stand [owner]

7 person live in house
All relatives live around
Rented from a family member
Will be moving soon because they cannot afford the rent

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

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

About DRP
He told us DRP will not affect him because he is renting.
Seemed indiffrent.
 Interview profile 15

Photos

Sewing workshop [family]

7 person live in house
All relatives live around
Rented from a family member
Will be moving soon because they cannot afford the rent

Space
Prefer to meet friends inside house Outside is used for
dishwashing and laundry
Could make great use of a second small room, for work

Livelihoods
Small beads on bottom of pajama pants
Receive pants already made. Add beads. Returns the
pants with the beads on.
- 2rs per piece
- 20 pieces per day Sketches
Need very minimal space to do this. Mainly done by
hand stitching

About DRP
Prefer house to high rise.
Seems to be because they are so strongly anchored in
their community.
 Interview profile 16

Photos

Day care centre [owner]

4 person live in room: teacher, her husband and her 2 sons.
Her room is big and has a kitchen inside.
Outside is a typical narrow alley. Many kids around us
during the interview.

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

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

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

Manufacturing

Questionnaires

How many people work here?

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

Is the location important for the business?

Interview
Is the owner renting the place or not?
Can the business be relocated in another place?

What are the different phases of production?

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

What are their personal aspirations in terms of their

businesses?
Do they want to change something in terms of the
space they use within the commercial units?
Do they know about DRP? What they think about it?
Are they willing to go somewhere else?
 Interview profile 17

Bakery [manager]

Networks Photos
Different traders within Dharavi. He contacts several
manufactures to bring the material from different
states.
One state is at the centre of Dharavi. The oil comes from
Gujarat (West).

Space & Livelihoods

Process of production: Store flour on the ground (do
not use substantive material). Mix flour with butter in
the machine and then bake the paste on the oven for
4 hours.
The bakery is open 24 hours a day. 12 people work there
in two shifts. The manager takes a break for 6 hours and
sleeps in the bakery. They come from 2 different states
apart from Maharastra. They normally work for 4 - 5
months and go back to their families for 2 months and
come again back. They don’t have bank holidays.

About DRP
He doesn’t want to leave from Chambra Bazaar

Sketches
 Interview profile 18

Photos

Treasurer of Pottery Society

Networks
Retail shops in Dharavi as part of Mumbai, whole sale
throughout Maharashtra state and beyond. (local, state,
nation).

Space & Livelihoods

Family oriented enterprise with long traditions
Children are schooled and became doctors, architects
etc.
Workspace is generally part of house interior
VLT – Vacant Land Tenancy

About DRP
Self-designated cluster unit plan, 1998
Reject the DRP
Have held talks, shown proposals for own (self )
redevelopment in terms of livelihoods etc.
 Interview profile 19

Photos

Store bag-luggage manufacture

[workers]

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

Space & Livelihoods

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

About DRP
The owner has his own tenure so he can get one store
and his aspiration is on ground floor shop and upper Sketches
floor residence.
 Interview profile 20

Photos

Leather industry
[owner]

Networks
Total 5 – 6 leather industries in Dharavi.
Deliver to different places (Kolkata, Chennai).
Products: Nothing stays in Dharavi (industrial safety
belts, military shoes). They export mostly in Europe.
The buffalo comes from Western Maharastra (Deonar)
No federation. No network.
The tanning in Chennai. Tracks are coming from Chennai.
In Dharavi the materials are ready.
It’s a fashion industry business which exports nationally
and internationally (British, Germany, Emirates).

Space & Livelihoods

He exports leather products, as there is no future to
skin. Sketches
Accessibility: Delivery by tracks. They load directly
outside the store.
Storage on the ground floor.

About DRP
“I will be very happy for the redevelopment plan. If
I have a good place for my business I want to stay.
Change has to come. But here people are attached
emotionally with each other. They don’t want to
leave. They have everything here and their happy. But
change must happen. The airport is very close, the
road. For me it’s the best place to work but if I cannot
stay I’m willing to negotiate for a good place. We are
preparing for this. We have to train the people. To make
them have skills”.
Chambda Bazaar

Retail activities

Questionnaires

How long have you worked in Dharavi?

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

What would you change about your shop to help you

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

What do you know about the DRP? How do you feel

about it?
Do you know anyone shifted to in the buildings from
Dharavi?
Can you continue your work in a high rise building?
Why would you like to change in your life or of your
children
if given a chance in future?
Would you like to ask us anything?
 Interview profile 21

Photos

Jewellery
[President of Dharavi Gold Association]

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

Labour
3 – 6 male workers. Sketches

Owners
Owner of the shop since 1990
All Shopkeepers Associations did not protect them from
the dispute thus starting the Dharavi Gold Association
Problem with the authenticity of the gold leading to
police disputes.
Meets 2-3 times every year.
7 member committee reporting to him.
Part of the Save Dharavi Movement.
 Interview profile 22

Photos

Embroidery Shop
[Owner]

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

Labour
Peak season 25 workers; off peak 6 works.
Sleeps in the same workshop
Takes 5 hours to make one piece

Sketches

Owners
Came to Dharavi 10 months ago
In a rented workshop of the first floor of the building
Do not belong to any union
Wife and kids lived in Dharavi for 2 months. Could not
adapt so they moved back.
 Interview profile 23

Photos

Bakery
[Owner]

Networks
Biscuits exported outside of Dharavi
Sold locally. Biscuits transported by bikes then trucks
would then take them all over India.
Raw materials delivered once a month from various
parts of India (flour from Goregeon).

Labour
Migrant workers lives in the dormitory space within the
bakery cluster. Works there for 8-10 months, goes back
to the village for 2 months, then comes back works in 2
shifts (day and night shift). More people in the day shift
than the night shift. Factory runs for 24 hours. Sketches

Owners
Initially more than 1 bakery but has to sell them off
Sold them off for the leather and garment business
Son joined his business.
 Interview profile 24

Photos

Seamstress
[Owner]

Networks
Clients in Dharavi.
Does not need more enough clients as is.
Part of a SRA group who meets 3-4 times.

Labour
Works on her own. A home base economic activity.

Sketches
Owners
Only does women’s clothing
Does beading/ stitching as well.
Beading needs special device.
Stitched before marriage.
Lived in a village before coming to Pune.
Husband is a cobbler.
Not aware of the DRP.
Would like the main road to be developed.
Not worried because she will get ground commercial
space since she got license
 Thi
rd

ht
tp:
//
www.
budds
inmumba
i.
blogs
pot
.c
om