8.INTERVIEW OF SANJEEV VIIDYARTHI

Next Article

7.BACK TO SQUARE ONE

INTERVIEW OF SANJEEV VIDYARTHI

Interviewed by: Chinmay Kamat and Kashish Singh

What parallels can be drawn between other cities of the world and Mumbai?

The true ethic of when we compare and contrast between different cities, in order to draw useful insights and lessons for future practice of city design or architecture, or city planning, is distinctions. Each city is distinct and unique. There are no two cities, even if we follow the same rules, make the same plan, the grid iron system plan and make two cities, after fifty years, they become distinct. They develop their unique persona. Even within Mumbai, Koliwada has a different culture than Colaba which again has a different culture than Bandra and then Andheri. Distinctiveness is one factor, and then there are common things. Some of the most common things are how we deal with infrastructure. How do we create resilient places? How do we create more sustainable places? And there are good examples all over the world, each city has some good aspects and some bad aspects.

It’s not only a question of learning from other cities in the west, but also from cities within India. Some cities are doing better than others. The distinctiveness of each city, resiliencies, sustainability, and the social aspect are factors to be considered. Every city has some or the other social challenges. Some cities do it better than others, and we can learn from those. By looking for things that have worked, and Interviewer: Yeah. So, also like, Mumbai’s longitudinal plan, it sits on a longitudinal point, so the lot of focal plans like how Chicago has its own central focal point, you know, from where it radiates into other places. How can we enhance these specific points with respect to the public-private utilization of infrastructure?

Mumbai has a longitudinal plan with multiple focal points. How can these specific points be enhanced with respect to the public-private utilization of infrastructure?

Mumbai has a central business district which is a strong core. Urban planners actively promoted this idea that we should not have one single core, we should have multiple cores, like there are in New Bombay, one being Bandra Kurla Complex which acts as a commercial core, while the Fort area acts as a historic core. ‘Multiple nuclei’ is a planning idea which is actively promoted by urban planners. At this point in time, in the 21 st century the central core of the city has a legacy and a history, that has a strong tourist draw. It is where the tourists go when they visit Mumbai.

We realize the importance of having multiple nuclei, but we also realize the importance of the touristic, the historical, the quality of life, importance of the central

body, that’s where the debate at the point in time stands. It is difficult to determine which is better but paying attention to the core is increasingly important in all senses.

If multiple nuclei are a good planning tool, why did Chandigarh fail? Corbusier’s approach towards Chandigarh may have worked in another country, but why did it not succeed in India? What can approach can work out in India?

The idea, especially in 1950’s and 60’s, was to segregate land users, residential, institutional, industrial, and commercial. More recent wisdom says that there should be mixed land users. Few land-uses which are really obnoxious, for example, slaughter houses, or polluting in the sea, are to be kept away, but otherwise, they should be more mixing of land-uses. Chandigarh has distinct land uses, there was no mixed land use. But people still mixed functions on their own. In the residential area, some shops were made, some temples were made. For India, this is what is important. In India, our land uses are traditionally mixed up. And it’s a good thing. We have to figure out planning standards that preserve this character of India. Mixing of land uses is considered a good thing.

A major part of Mumbai is already developed, how can the aspect of mixed use or the ratio and allotment of public and private spacing be applied onto the existing infrastructure?

This has not been studied in great detail yet. How much open space should be there, how much built-up should be there, what kind of activities could be allowed in builtup, what should be the land use, is something that has to be researched. Western standards do not work in Indian cities, and Chandigarh is a great example. And the first generation of Indian masterplans took Western standards verbatim. This is something that would be same in all cities. But what exactly should be the mix is something that is not yet decided.

Can the informal market system in Mumbai, such as the hawkers, be integrated within the infrastructure rather than rejecting or trying to negate it?

Yes, in the 21 st century, 70 years after independence hawkers are a good thing. And it is an activity that actually makes the urban space lively. And people like it and people buy from them. For hawkers, this is a good employment. How do we incorporate in a formal urban plan, we do not know yet. We might know it in the context of US, for example, places like L.A., city of L.A. actively promotes food trucks and their market is where food trucks come and conduct business. In India, we are at the stage where we recognize this is important, how we do it is a question for the next generation to solve.

Will potentially revamping the pavement system in India work?

In many ways it will prove to be useful. How would we regulate pavements, which zones we should mark, where these zones should be, should they be closer to the train station, if they are then would it increase density too much? Would these become crowded places if we do it for hundred people and then what about the next five hundred? This is more of a debate than a conversation.

Delhi’s Meena bazaar is a market within a monument, can an ideology like that be incorporated within the existing monumental structures?

Yes. Bazaar is the central feature of Indian urban fabric. Very few places love bazaars as much as this country does. Everywhere, we created a bazaar. And modernist urban planners did not think this was a good thing. They wanted to keep the residential area and the bazaars separate. This did not work. Indians love bazaars. The people with modern houses, converted ground floors into shops and wherever there were major streets, markets came up. Charles Correa’s major ideological struggle was with Doshi, Correa, to some extent Raj Rewal, Achyut Kanvinde. They were trying to create an architecture which drew inspiration or used the vocabulary of modern architecture and create an architecture which suited the essence of this country. Charles Correa was trying to create an architecture suitable for a modern independent India using contemporary global ideas. For the next generation, the defining question is what kind of an urbanism is appropriate for country like India? We like bazaars, hawkers, restaurants, vada pav stalls, while adjusting these things in our city, how can we make a functional infrastructurally level city?

Mumbai has a lot of informal settlements, such as Dharavi. How do we enhance the “missing middle strata” with the use of the existing informal housing?

In the developing world, informal settlements supply the bulk of housing. In Mumbai 60 to 70 percent of housing in the city is supplied by the informal settlements. Policy wise, it has become clear that with we cannot remove all the informal settlements. SRA has been tried, but we cannot remove it all. What the government does is that it works

strategically wherever there is road widening or some very important urban development project and resettles people very well. There was an architect called John Turler. He worked in 1970s in South America. The idea that he figured out is that we should rehabilitate people and give them land titles. Many places have incorporated this. For example, many places in Europe, cities grow organically, and then they become more formalized and redevelopment happens, thus they make gradual progress. Slums are not going to go away in foreseeable future. Another 40-50 years we will continue to have them. How do we uplift them, how do we improve the quality of living, how do we give land titles to these people, which places do we do an SRA kind of development, which places are flood prone? For example, if a structure is constructed on the Mithi river, it would not work, some nature of planning has to be considered. But places prone to natural disasters have to be taken care.