In Mumbai, “two-thirds of the city’s (Bombay) residents are crowded
into just 5 percent of the total area, while the richer or more rent-protected one-third monopolize the remaining 95 percent.” The Development Plans for Mumbai, criticized as “a form of ‘planned’ exclusion of the poor and the middle class”, have failed to address issues of slums and affordable housing. These acts of exclusions form pockets of ghettoization, which are breeding grounds of social tension, insecurity, violence, and psychological disorders, where people are denied access to water supply, security, education, job opportunities, and connection to the city.This “conspicuous separation” between “gated communities of the privileged and ghettoized territories of the marginalized people”, as stated by PK Das , not only creates harsh boundaries among different groups, but also unfairness in terms of accessibility to open spaces. In short, the widening of income gap leads to spatial inequality in Mumbai and Nalasopara contributes to the unfairness in accessibility to open space, harsh separation across income groups, ghettoization of marginalized groups, and the lack of decision-making power among people, which all together denies people to
The Right to the City, i.e. (1) the right to appropriate urban space; (2) the
right to participate centrally in the production of urban space; and (3) the
right to diversity, as proposed by Henri Lefebvre and summarized by
Purcell and Duke. The project therefore aims to create accessible and meaningful urban spaces, soften boundaries among income groups while having appropriate
borders, provide opportunities for people participation in the development process, accommodate and encourage diversity, and combat segregation that has kept inhabitants from appropriation and participation, which all together bring The Right to the City to the people. Using Sriprastha, an existing deteriorating cooperative housing in the West of Nalasopara
as a starting point, I would propose three new housing typologies that cater aspirations of different income groups, while being relatable to the existing buildings. These typologies would be offered to the existing residents as choices to redevelop their existing societies on a case by case basis. To show how these new typologies would be applicable in other areas, they would also be built from scratch on a neighboring empty plot, with a different configuration from the existing urban fabric. Ideas of participatory design, levels of intervention and control, mixed income housing, and cross subsidization would be explored. Ultimately, the project hopes to propose an alternative scenario from the current situation of complete exclusion of the urban poor, creating borders that act as “zones of exchanges”, rather than harsh boundaries.