In Pursuit of Architecture and more: Apathy towards built environment

Work compelled me to travel to an industrial town North-East of Mumbai. There was haze in the air and everything was covered in dust, it felt as if I was looking through dirty glasses. Buildings were basic, mostly painted in yellow colour, closely packed together. Brown bands ran horizontally to demarcate every floor. Single-lane roads packed with parked motorbikes and cars, bare minimum footpaths lined with shops overflowing with goods and scrap forgotten to be picked up. In general, this town bore a run-down look.

This is the story of most newer towns around Mumbai. There's no thought given to planning of roads, buildings, amenities so it would be too much to ask about the aesthetic design. I wonder why? Why so much apathy towards built environment? Why do 80% of the people give such little thought to the conditions they live in? Is the building to provide shelter and nothing more than that?

And then there are these quaint little towns untouched by urban idea of progress. Just arriving into these little hamlets gives one a feeling of being at home. The buildings are modest one or two storey, mostly simple mud or brick houses with clean front yard along quiet roads shaded with trees.

It would be foolish to compare the lives of rural folks and town people but somewhere along the journey from a village to a town we seem to lose our will to beautify surroundings. I think people coming to Mumbai have a 'migrants' mentality', they always harbor a wish to go back to their own hometown and settle. So, Mumbai becomes a stop-gap arrangement.

People come in hordes to Mumbai in search of a better career so that they can send money back home to their families. Our driver saves every penny that he can to spend his annual vacation in his hometown 2000 miles away from Mumbai. He spends saved money in making additions to his house, it's either a new room or ceramic flooring or a kitchen platform.

Typical Advertisement -for representation only

He has purchased a one-bedroom flat in the Eastern suburb. He treats it as a guest house and an investment for his son who will eventually come to Mumbai in search of a career to send money back home. His reasons for investing in this property are very simple. It is close to the railway station and it is cheap.

He doesn't have the luxury to think about amenities provided by the real estate developer. Glossy 3D images are enough to lure him into buying this house.

3D image - for representation only

It is another matter they haven't got Occupancy Certificate from the government. He is not worried about that as it is only a matter of time till the real estate developer strikes a good deal with the officials.

Desperation of exploding population is exploited by small time builders to rake in money. There are loopholes in the judiciary system and they know how to circumvent any legal matter. Their motto is cheap housing and fast bucks.

Is it necessary to compromise amenities and aesthetics to create affordable housing? Is it necessary to build high rise buildings to accommodate influx of people in mumbai? This is an important issue to think about. Weak infrastructure only leads to poor standards of living. Result - mosquito infested housing complexes with bad roads and worst amenities.

In 1983, Charles Correa built Belapur housing in the suburb of Mumbai. This project was intended to be an experiment for incremental housing. The design is based on the theory espoused by Correa himself that low-rise architecture and high-density planning are not contradictory approaches to housing. I think it was a great idea to provide basic units for living and let people add extensions as and when they required. This could really make the user feel belonging to that place. Their own housing units, affordable and definitely not monotonous. They didn't look like matchbox houses. It had a feel of rural architecture with sloping roofs and shared courtyards. Privacy was maintained by restricting vehicular traffic and community spaces and amenities were provided and yet it managed to achieve 500 persons per hectare density.

Typical Cluster - Belapur Housing by Charles Correa

Did it work?
Many architects, activists and otherwise have said much about this complex. Good and bad. Many years and alterations later this place looks different. Well! it was intended to be incremental. But as people have progressed in their life they've chosen to tear down old structures for more modern versions, funny enough they thought sloping roofs looked too 'village-like'. Shared courtyards still hold their charm and the growth is organic.

Architectural Review Magazine (1985) said, "Notwithstanding its problems, Belapur is a noble creation- and one that has much to reach the First World and well as the Third".
More such experiments need to be done and revisited periodically to see if they work or fail. Changes can be brought about involving the community. By making people sensitive to their environment and aware of their responsibility to keep their own community spaces clean. Strict guidelines can be enforced to follow certain alteration/addition patterns.

It fails me- why people don't take pride in their houses and community spaces? Why can't they aspire to have a house with their individuality written all over it. The government apathy towards enforcing basic amenities is appalling. Once the plan is passed, residents can make any, absolutely any changes to the government approved plan and sell it. Why can't our officials let go of the bribe and for once really help in making beautiful, efficient housing complexes? I'm tired of 'Dharavi tourism', why don't people get tired of showing their slums to the world and aspire to show model communities? Hats off to resilient immigrants of Mumbai and their spirit but I'm sure people living in Dharavi would love to have better looking, living, working and breathing conditions.

Snapshots of Belapur Housing now - Courtesy - http://www.airoots.org/2008/09/an-artist-village-stands-in-mumbabylon