The Deterioration of Shared Spaces in Mumbai's Redevelopment

Mumbai’s redevelopment regime has shattered the public sphere. People are now compelled to think of themselves not as residents of a shared city, but as prospective beneficiaries of real-estate schemes. This shift has created a disaggregated public, with different groups such as homeowners of cooperative societies, protected tenants of CESS buildings, MHADA residents, and gaothan inhabitants each vying for their own benefits.

Differentiated entitlements under various schemes have led to a fragmented society. Even slum dwellers are categorized into 'eligible' and 'ineligible' occupants, with the latter struggling for inclusion. Politicians often tout redevelopment as a solution that benefits everyone: residents get modern apartments, builders make substantial profits, new housing is constructed, and public authorities generate revenue.

However, the focus of residents' demands rarely extends beyond larger flats or private amenities. Last week, the government announced that Dharavi residents living in chawls or buildings will be entitled to a residential unit between 46.5 and 69.2 square meters, free of cost. Eligible slum residents of Dharavi have been offered 32.5 sqm, but they demand 46.5 sqm. Meanwhile, formal residents of MHADA’s Motilal Nagar have been offered 148.6 sqm, but they are demanding 185 sqm. Similar disputes are common in almost every cooperative society redevelopment project.

These demands are understandable given the visible profits and scale of redevelopment. Politicians and builders are often willing to concede these demands, as it benefits both parties. The best-kept secret of redevelopment is that when residents get more private built-up area, builders gain even more saleable space. Consequently, rehabilitation entitlements have increased over the decades. Governments often announce these increases before elections and hike the Floor Space Index (FSI) afterward, solving the problem temporarily.

This approach, however, ignores a crucial lesson in urban planning: what makes a city livable is not just the amount of private space people own, but the quality and quantity of shared spaces. A city is not merely a collection of houses; it needs shared spaces for commuting, common amenities, and recreation. While everyone has a clear idea of the private built-up space they desire, few care about the shared spaces they need.

In Mumbai, politicians offer higher minimum built-up areas to residents, and planners compare the city’s FSI with cities like Manhattan and Shanghai. However, they avoid addressing the issue of shared spaces. A 2007 study showed that Manhattan has 24.4 sqm per capita for public use, Shanghai has 21.5 sqm, while island city Mumbai has just 8.19 sqm. No political party promises redevelopment 'entitlements' in the form of minimum area for open spaces or common amenities. Why? Because in Mumbai, people do not demand things that do not benefit builders.

An apartment measuring 46.5 sqm works out to 9.3 sqm of private built-up area per person (assuming a household size of five people). National-level urban planning norms prescribe that any redevelopment project must have 2 sqm of open space and at least 2 sqm for amenities per capita. Adding 3 sqm minimum for commuting, we need 7 sqm, but let’s adopt a bare minimum of 5 sqm per person. How many ongoing redevelopment projects meet this norm?

None.

Take Motilal Nagar, for example. The layout of 56 hectares has 5,300 homes and provides 5.7 hectares of open space, or 2.1 sqm per person. Including roads and common amenities, each resident has approximately 9 sqm of shared space. In the new project, will each resident get even 5 sqm of public-use areas?

Redevelopment aims to create homes for 1.5 lakh people, making 5 sqm per person a mathematical impossibility. Similarly, in Dharavi, the developer plans to build houses for 4.85 lakh people on 251 hectares of land. A norm of 2 sqm of open space per person would require 97 hectares for open spaces (the scheme provides just 40 hectares), and 5 sqm for shared spaces would require 242 hectares, leaving almost nothing for buildings. The problem is clear: high redevelopment densities result in an impoverished public realm. Cramming more houses into an area enriches builders but impoverishes citizens.

Mumbai’s redevelopment regulations focus on private areas, producing neighborhoods where people own more but share less. The wealthy can afford private amenities in high-rise gated complexes, but common citizens rely on public provision of land for social infrastructure and green open spaces. These public spaces are being gifted to builders to build more houses. The city is being turned inside out, and as a collective project, it may well be dead.