India: A Case Study For Living

In light of the recent global economic crisis, I find it necessary for the world to think innovatively on the way in which we live and build. As the scope of the world drastically changes, the cities we inhabit must follow. No stranger to this transformation is the developing country of India. Weaved into many of the major cities is a network of impoverished neighborhoods. These regions have often been labeled as “slums,” for lack of a better term. Their relevance to urban studies is apparent in that one-sixth of the world’s population occupies some form of slum and the billion people this includes is expected to double in the next few decades. These areas are the collective product of the societies who create them, making them the purest form of an organic urban condition. As a precedent, they are particularly interesting because the issues that surround them are so complex. These controversies are often seen from a cynical outside point of view, and rarely looked at as a possible catalyst which could produce applications of improvement for the modern society. In this post I consider an article by Matias Echanove and Rahul Srivastava, who are affiliated with the Partners for Urban Knowledge Action and Research. Titled, “Taking the ‘Slum’ out of Dharavi,” the argument clearly observes the positive aspects of the low-income societies depicted in the recent film Slumdog Millionaire. In addition, I further examine a post by Katia Savchuk, entitled, “Housing Post-Disasters,” which offers an insight into the effectiveness of the housing provided as a result of natural disasters. The aforementioned articles and their respective comments can be found on the links above, but have also been placed directly below.


“Taking the ‘Slum’ out of Dharavi”
Comment

While Slumdog Millionaire has provided a vast array of discussion on the internet, I am pleased to see an argument of such substance and open-mindedness. I have recently been lucky enough to travel to India, and although I was unable to visit Mumbai, I feel that cities such as Delhi and Varanasi were of significant comparison in regards to your thoughts. The cinematic collage of Mumbai, which ultimately culminates as the image of Dharavi in the film, struck an eerily familiar tone from my days in India (seen at right). People who have never experienced these pocket neighborhoods would find it easy to draw negative conclusions about them; however, I agree whole-heartedly that there is a definite lesson to be learned from the “sheer resourcefulness of its inhabitants” and the organic nature of these areas. What I enjoyed most about my visits, also shared by that “certain brand of photo-reporters and slum tourists,” is the urban palimpsest quality that has been laid over time. The locals drying clothes and selling food amongst the grazing cows all superimposed on centuries of architecture that has been broken, patched, rewired and adapted over time. This serendipitous charm and the sensory overload that you receive with every turn is what makes India worth seeing. But perhaps this is the attitude of the fortunate visitor and not the viewpoint of the end-user of these areas. I cannot help but wonder whether these people are truly benefitting from the landfills that they inhabit. Albeit, they provide a level of economic value in the way that they recycle, but there must certainly be a better, cleaner, more sustainable method to the madness that occurs in Dharavi. I believe the people here make do with what they are given and are incredibly resilient, which results in the photogenic nature of these regions, but is that reason enough to say that they are happy with their current situations? I also agree that spreading development of Mumbai over the area would be a negative, but do you think there could be some way the area could be developed to enhance the cleanliness, safety, and economic production of Dharavi without displacing the local residents?


“Housing Post-Disasters”
Comment

With the current increasing frequency in natural disasters, now is a more appropriate time than ever to discuss the issues of post-disaster housing. As a designer, I naturally feel that good design should always be the point of departure for a better solution. In the lower-income regions of India, their success comes with their ability to adapt their environment. Evidence of this overlap in infrastructure, technology, building, and lifestyle is apparent in the layering seen on any given alley in India (see picture at left). Perhaps this is the reason that the “cookie-cutter” homes were left vacant soon after they were provided. Do you think that a more suitable solution could have been a kit-of-parts where locals are supplied the resources to design a more personal dwelling? I feel that this could conceivably be a more sustainable approach in that the end user is more likely to use a home programmed to their uses. The makeup of the kit could simply be designed based on the region that it is being supplied to and custom tailored towards the indigenous population. For example, in the fishing village of Chandrabhaga, materials needed to store and process fish could be provided. Another consideration I have noticed in your post is the appearance of modern ideas in the relief structures. The home in Mundasahi that “can be expanded as resources become available” echoes the ideas instilled in the modern prototype by Le Corbusier, the Museum of Unlimited Growth. The use of the rooftops in these homes also mirrors Corb’s five points of architecture, where the ground plane taken by the buildings footprint is restored in the form of a roof garden. Could this use of modern architectural ideas or reverse precedent study be incorporated into the houses in order to improve their usability?