This piece is an in-class essay that has been revised for my ENGL 100 Creative Writing class. We were told we had to assess an article we had read before and summarize and respond to it within a time period of three hours. For my essay, I chose to respond to Matias Echanove and Rahul Srivastava’s article, “This is Not a Slum: What the World can learn from Dharavi,” written in 2016. They talk about the importance of a neighbourhood called Dharavi located in Mumbai, India, as well as the dangers the citizens face and what Dharavi can do for the world.

As our world’s human population continues to grow, we have to reexamine our current city models and restructure them. In Matias Echanove and Rahul Srivastava’s article, “This is Not a Slum: What the World can learn from Dharavi,” (2016), we are introduced to one of Mumbai’s “slums”, better known as a “home-grown neighbourhood,” which attract the attention of many tourists every year due to their “enterprising spirit” and “hard-working and skilled labor force” (19-20). The authors describe Dharavi as a highly productive place with dense, mixed-use buildings, and it welcomes people of low-class who are in need of housing and work (20). Due to Dharavi’s loose construction regulations and little to no support from the government, the residents have been given the creative opportunity to design and build their own city buildings when needed, resulting in the work-intensive and efficient mixed-use spaces they have today (22). This city structure is manageable and possible in home-grown neighbourhoods in the world such as Dharavi, but it may be more difficult to recreate it in larger cities such as Vancouver which has different standards of living and social values. Although Sharavi demonstrates an interesting concept of a home-grown neighbourhood by showing cities can be inclusive and productive when utilizing mixed-use spaces creatively, it is not a realistic model to integrate into city models worldwide entirely.

Dharavi’s “slum” status causes misunderstandings by portraying a negative image of dirty, uncultured, and unmodernized neighbourhoods, but it is quite the opposite (20). Echanove and Srivastava’s article mentions city planners who desire to rebuild Dharavi into modern buildings, “but they are not developing it for the people of Dharavi,” but rather, “for the richer class” (22). These city planners argue that Dharavi is a shameful and unstructured neighbourhood with confusing streets filled with factories and shrines, but they do not see the beauty within those highly dense streets (22). The authors emphasize the importance and efficiency of Dharavi’s mixed-use building as they have been the basis of how workers can “produce about $500 million in exports a year,” and despite the lack of infrastructure, their multipurpose public venues can be used for rallies, festivals, and more while cultivating a community-based support system (20-22). Dharavi is a welcoming place not only because of the opportunities that can be found there, but because of the sense of safety and security residents feel while walking down the streets from the tight-knit community atmosphere (21). Only in organic neighbourhood communities such as Dharavi, one with nowhere to go can find comfort.

Echanove and Srivastava discover that the foundation for Dharavi’s city structure is credited to the loose construction regulations. According to Echanove and Srivastava, “residents could make their own homes and design the interiors” (22). Most of these housing developments were created by residence demand, thus creating fewer chances of unused spaces which is the problem with current buildings and businesses nowadays (22-23). The authors realized that through the system put in place and the adaptable structures, residents were able to maximize the  spaces given to them by creating mixed-use buildings which in turn, saves money, time and space. It is undeniable that Dharavi is a highly developed and successful city considering the lack of support given to them.

Despite Dharavi’s success, I do not believe the current economic and social conditions of large cities worldwide match with the city structure of a home-grown neighbourhood. Echanove and Srivastava describes that “the live-work conditions of Dharavi- characterized by what we refer to as the preponderance of the tool house, a variation of the shophouse and home factory found in other parts of Asia,” is a lifestyle that not every person is used to or is able to adjust to (24). Echanove and Srivastava are mistaken when they believe we can adopt the same live-work system because people and their tendencies to switch careers and jobs compared to Dharavi where there majority of the jobs are in factories. Furthermore, larger cities are structured around traveling by vehicles and require order in the way the city is laid out; the chaotic roads of Dharavi would not suit the structure of larger Western city systems. That would only cause disorder and accidents within the cities, and as the authors point out, “it is remarkable how schizophrenic the experience of visiting homes in Dharavi can be” (22). Because of how unplanned the locations of public venues and mixed-use buildings are and how narrow the roads are, it is difficult to navigate yourself through the city. On top of the lack of infrastructure and toilets in the city, residents of larger cities would not be keen on adopting such a city structure. Though I concede that integrating more aspects of home-grown communities into modern city models such as increasing high-density mixed-use spaces as done in some stores and homes in Vancouver such as Brentwood Mall, I still insist that it would be impossible to recreate entire cities of home-grown neighbourhoods like Dharavi worldwide and expect similar successful results.

Even though Dharavi demonstrates an interesting concept of a home-grown neighbourhood and proves that cities can successfully be inclusive while being highly productive when creating their own mixed-use spaces, it would be unrealistic to complete integrate such a model into cities worldwide. Echanove and Srivastava clearly describe the wonderful aspects and the dangers that Dharavi is facing, and it is easy to sympathize and support Dharavi after reading such a passionate article. However, it is still difficult to agree to completely recreate these home-grown neighbourhoods. By focusing on the amazing efficiency, productivity, and culture built in Dharavi, Echanove and Srivastava overlook the deeper problem of realistically applying this city structure into cities worldwide which embody much different economic and social situations. The urban planning’s lack of order and infrastructure- although creative and resourceful- would not be able to merge with the developed lifestyle in certain modernized and popular cities. Nonetheless, there are a few key attributes that can be taken from Dharavi and revised into a logical and adaptable concept catered to our societal values. As our human population continues to grow exponentially, it is essential that we take in all the ideas and successes around us in order to create a more adaptable future.

Photo Source : https://bethanyclarke.co.uk/editorial/stories/slums/