This conference aims at expanding the scope of affordable housing initiatives in India. For the most, affordable housing has been seen as the result of state interventions responding to the needs of the urban poor. More recently, non-state actors (both profit driven and charitable) have entered the market for the provision of affordable housing.  The government is now actively encouraging market driven interventions that cross-subsidize the construction of affordable housing stock.

The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in Mumbai is an example of this approach where land is released from erstwhile occupied lands in officially designated ‘slums’ through relocating residents in vertical structures, while providing valuable “transferable building rights” to developers. In other cities developers are directly purchasing cheap land wherever possible and targeting new buyers from the lower middle-class sector who were so far unable to afford housing at market rates. There housing is made affordable by lowering construction costs, minimizing the footprint of individual units and scaling up the size of housing projects.

Yet, expectations are still far from being met, both in terms of quantity and quality of affordable housing. According to some projections India still needs 27 million more units, while managing to produce hardly 1 million in the past 10 years. This need is likely to grow to 35 million units by 2025. Even more dramatic is the poor quality of stock being produced today.

The logic that consists in making housing affordable by reducing the cost of construction has lead to all kinds of malpractices. After a few years in existence, affordable housing blocks typically start crumbling down, leading to rising maintenance cost and lowering real estate value. Very soon they look and function worse than those they were meant to replace, and ready to be redeveloped themselves.

Between 1997 and 2002, the government and the builders built 500 000 houses in urban India, when in the same time, people built 8.5 million units in so-called “slums”. This conference will discuss new ways of conceiving, producing, financing and designing affordable housing, which break the self-defeating logic in which affordable housing seems to be locked in today. It focuses on a much-overlooked aspect of Indian cities: the ability of so many neighbourhoods to produce their own homes.

The so-called slums of the city are in many ways attempts at increasing affordable housing units through a different construction and financial system. Of course the discussions will take into consideration many dimensions – legal, political and economic – but also issues of design, the history of urban planning, twentieth century visions of modern cities and other rarely discussed concerns that are pertinent to a critical and effective policy on and practice about affordable housing.

The conference builds on weeks of pedagogic exchanges with students of  the Sir J.J. College of Architecture, URBZ, leading practitioners from India and abroad, and local contractors and masons. They have documented existing construction practices in the neighbourhoods of Shivaji Nagar -Govandi, Bhandup and Dharavi and evolved their own visions through this learning experience.  The students’ work that will be exhibited and presented during the conference, includes an in-depth understanding of the local construction processes and examines physical construction and financial sustainability.

This study opens up the possibility of re-looking at affordable housing in a manner that transcends, statist, private sector and market driven approaches and strives for a realistic and more effective model based on user’s involvement, community networks and local economic dynamics. Can we develop new models? Think out of the box? Support effective affordable housing initiatives as they are already unfolding in our shadow cities? We hope the conference starts asking – and answering – such questions towards this end.

See the conference page, for full programme and speakers’ bios.

The author of this article, Marcella Aruda, is a student of architecture at Escola da Cidade, Sao Paulo, Brazil. She participated in a three days workshop organized by URBZ in Paraisopolis. The students are seen interacting with local builder Ataide in the picture above.

What are the most productive and socially relevant roles that the architect and architecture student can play today? I ask this question because as a student of the discipline in Brazil, I feel that the architect’s social function has lost direction a bit. What I want to explore in this short essay is: How can Brazilian architecture colleges best prepare the student to practice his social function?

In the end of the 20th century, Brazil could be considered an urban country: in 2000, the population living in cities exceeded 2/3s of the whole country’s population, reaching 138 million people. This process of urbanization was lead by the cities in the southeast, principally São Paulo, and then started to expand to other regions.

While the medium annual rate of urban growth in 2010 was 1.9%, the São Paulo periphery’s growth rate was above 6% (Whitaker). In 2011 a government report (IBGE) states that 11.4 million people in Brazil live in unstable settlements, or as we refer to them here, in favelas. Also, the same report declared, that 3.2 million of low-income houses are mainly concentrated in the southeast region. That covers 49.8% of all such residences in the country with almost 23.2% of the lot being only in São Paulo.

Reflecting on these numbers it must be reiterated that most of these houses were constructed by people themselves or local pedreiros, (contractors, skilled masons, small builders) without any technical or scientific help of any other professional – just with their know-how, and skills gained through what they learned by doing.

Sketches of local constructions in Paraisopolis by students of Escola da Cidade. More here.

Considering that architects study, project and construct spaces where social relations take place – and that they have the scientific and technical knowledge to do it, it would be very helpful on all counts if they should be part of the process of building in these irregular settlements.

What happens today is that, in Brazil, the majority of architects only work for 10% of the population. That is, most architects’ produce a wide of range of output only for the ones who can pay a significant price for having this ‘privilege’. In such a scenario, as a student of architecture who is also supposed to be socially conscious, how exactly do I see my role?

The need of bringing back the importance of the architect’s role in society is imperative. Along with this it is also important to change the way we see architecture: “not anymore as some individual aesthetic expression, but as an ethical and aesthetic one” (Tomaz Lotufo). The question is: how?

Maybe if we should try and understand why the process of letting go the ‘social concern’ happened in the first place we may get some clues. In the university, the architecture student learns about his role in society, however, it mainly narrows to a theoretical understanding. There is no practical learning.

The acknowledgement of a social role only emerges when awareness grows; and this consciousness only comes alive when we empathize with others in a different context, know how it is to be in another’s place, wh know other realities besides our own. And one can only know another reality if one cohabits and lives with it and establishes a relationship with ‘other’ people, who are part of it.

Paraisopolis viewed from a rooftop

Supermarket built by pedreiro Ataide in Paraisopolis (previous shot taken from this roof). Escola da Cidade students studied this construction in detail and presented their finding to the pedreiro, the community and the municipality.

Inside the supermarket. Ground floor starts functioning while construction is ongoing on the upper floors.

Pedreiro Ataide with market owner in front of the store. Trust and reputation is everything for a local builder.

A good address in Paraisopolis.

Being in touch with social reality is extremely substantial, in that it develops an understanding of a culture – of ways of doing, building, exchanging and also relating to the people themselves as well as to the urban space as a whole. Besides, it generates the practice of collective values, which collaborates to create collective life and social organization.

Thinking it through this way, a socially relevant project can be a way of constructing this relationship and this proximity with this social reality, and starting to signify a way and a means to get to an end. That is: the community, mainly the pedreiros, and architecture students can work together to develop a collaborative achievement, in which the students learn with the local methods of construction, the culture of living and the way of relating in that context while the pedreiro can also get the technical and scientific support he wants. What can be constructed through this is another way of thinking of the irregular settlements such as the favelas: learning what is done in this place, and developing a project that proposes new ways of dealing with this space’s problems and expanding the potential of what works.

Emanating from the pedreiro’s project, the student can give consultancy to the pedreiro, contribute to the project with ideas for an easier way to make the built form, share details of design, exchange ideas of transforming what was meant to be done, harmonize cost and quality, suggest better distribution of rooms, and many other things (but always by remembering that we must not change everything, and strive to keep the language and the essence of what was first provided).

Moreover, this idea of collaboration must involve not only the pedreiro and the student, but also the owner/contractor, the community and, ideally even the authorities. If the project is lead by the pedreiro, who gets the ‘consultancy’ of the student, it can also be constructed by the local labor? This way it would contribute to the local economy and would engage the community, create a sense of belonging necessary to generate the idea of value and also enhance the maintenance of what’s being built.

Marcella showing the group’s output to pedreiro Ataide.

Furthermore, if the city hall, instead of investing in buildings ‘planted’ in the middle of the favela’s space and contracting a company to construct it, could finance the pedreiros (providing capital for the construction) and this would generate jobs in the community and provide tools for their own development.

Of course, this whole idea of involving the neighborhood, the pedreiros and the students is extremely new in all aspects (and also an innovation in academic environment as well as in the social one). How does one introduce a new way of doing and building in an already established culture? How do we set up the participation of the architect in this already established relation chain?

These are questions we will be able to answer only when we start working. Sometimes the process unfolds when the practice starts. However, what we certainly know is that if there is one particular ingredient in place then the process will be smooth. That ingredient is trust. The collaboration between the architecture student and the pedreiro (as a delegate of the community) is only possible by launching a relationship between both: a social contact, a familiarity, basically by instituting trust.

Students show their study to Elisabete França, director of the Secretariat de Habitaçao in Sao Paulo. Left Bhau Korde and Fernando Botton.

Mumbai Contra-CT: 
Techniques and Tactics of Local Affordable Housing Production

@ Sir JJ College of Architecture, Mumbai

SEMINAR & FIELDWORK Dec 5th 2011  Jan 22nd 2012
EXHIBITION & WORKSHOP Jan 23rd, 24th, 25th, 2012
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION March 30th – 31st 2012

Affordable housing is seen as both, a high social priority by the government and NGOs as well as an unprecedented financial opportunity by developers. The result is the large-scale production of low-cost housing blocks which quickly turn into vertical slums. In the meanwhile, local contractors and end-users are building far more numerous housing units of better quality at lower prices in Mumbai’s many unplanned settlements. Often dismissed as slums, locally developed neighbourhoods produce a powerful counter-narrative to the mass production of low-cost housing. This program brings together architects, engineers, contractors and end-users to explore this dynamic sector and innovate in the field of affordable housing.

Curated by URBZ/Urbanology
Faculty: Mustansir Dalvi, Yashwant Pitkar, Ayaz Rajgara, Ashley Fiahlo Supriyo Bhattacharya, Jal Arya, Matias Echanove, Rahul Srivastava, Poonam Mulchandani.
+ Guest Experts TBA

For more info, contact us.

We spent most of last week in Ahmedabad, the dynamic capital of Gujarat, which is developing just as fast as any other major Indian city today. In spite of the wide availability of land, real estate prices are shooting up in most parts due to the speculative bubble that is currently affecting India and boosting its economy.

Alexis de Ducla, a 28 year old affordable housing enthusiast who currently heads a special research project at Lafarge, a large cement company invited us to meet Bijal Bhatt, who heads the Mahila Housing Trust (MHT) –the housing and planning wing of SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s Association). MHT wants to start producing affordable housing for its members. This is a first for the organization, which has been focusing mostly on slum upgrading and advocacy till now. They have asked us offer recommendations that could help them achieve their objectives.

We visited a few social entrepreneurs and developers in Ahmedabad, including the up and coming DBS (Affordable Housing Strategy), a start up that is currently developing a 1400 flat housing project in south-east Ahmedabad. Flats are 22 sq.m to 62 sq.m and sell from INR 3.29 lakhs to 8.25 lakhs ($7,400 to $18,400), which is well below the market rate. For this project they have collaborated with SAATH an non-profit organization who’s goal is to create inclusive cities.

We interacted with people involved in various parts of the affordable housing production chain, including end users. The buyers we met were all looking forward to moving to a new house and neighbourhood, which would give them with better social status. A few of them mentioned that they were doing it for the children who were growing up and needed a better environment.

Affordable housing construction site in south-east Ahmedabad.

Many said that trust in the developer was an important factor in their choice. They started paying for the apartment years before the completion of the project and based their choice on the plans and brochures they were shown. Most wanted a ground floor apartment so they could park their vehicle in front and also open a small shop.

The developers we talked to said that the demand is so strong that it was hard for them to keep a cap on profits. To reserve a flat, buyers first have to deposit money on a bank account and apply for a loan. Rather than the total price of the flat, many affordable housing buyers are looking for loans with smaller EMI (Equated Monthly Installments), of less than INR 10,000 a month, which they feel they can repay, even if that means paying for the flat a few times over.

While some affordable housing developers have a clear social agenda, it is not so easy to help the poorest entirely through market mechanisms. The cap on profits, even at 20% or 10% doesn’t guarantee the fulfillment of the social objective. In some cases it simply amounts to sharing the profit with the buyer. That’s seems like a good thing for the buyer, but it could also drag the market price down artificially, forcing other builders to lower construction cost (and compromise even more on quality) to retain their existing profit margins.

Moreover, buyers of affordable housing are not always those for whom the product is intended. A builder reported that Gujarati friends from Canada and the US wanted to buy 100 affordable flats as an investment. Even with a strict screening of the buyers and provisions forbidding them from selling for 5 to 10 years, many flats end up being sold anyways. A lot of the housing market in India is underground and unaudited. It is the biggest money making and money laundering system in the country.

If affordable housing is so fashionable these days, it is not so much because it serves the needs of millions of poor people. It is rather because the market for middle-class and upper-middle housing is quickly saturating and overheating. Tens of thousands of upper-end flats are going unsold in Ahmedabad and Mumbai. Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands more are empty, owned by distant investors who have no intention of renting it to anybody. Many investors prefer to buy (or better build) and sell fast, before their property deteriorates. Unused flats have a higher exchange value because they are more fluid on the market. Affordable housing is indeed often turning into affordable real estate investment.

The saddest part of the story is the construction of countless cheap buildings all over the country that are not built to last. They quickly deteriorate and become costly to maintain. The developer is out of the building as soon as all the flats are sold and the responsibility for maintenance and repairs falls on all flat owners.

Affordable housing builders are betting on two things: fast turnover and the scaling up of their operation. This is why they are ready to lower their profit margin. But even then we heard buyers complain that the price of the same flat was always changing in response to the demand. This produces a highly unstable and risky market that is disproportionately based on the exchange value of housing, rather than on its use value. The result is a housing stock of extremely poor quality, which cannot really be said to contribute to the betterment of society.

A possible way out of this dangerous dynamic is to re-conceptualize the house as a process, rather than as a product. We have observed in Dharavi and many other habitats that were not planned nor developed by professional real estate developers, that a house is never just a house. It is also a tool for revenue generation, whether it is through renting, production or commercial activity. Moreover a house is never quite finished. It is always improving and being adapted to new needs. This cannot happen in mass housing. A large building can never improve over time.

The economy of construction itself is important. When a resident of Dharavi needs to fix his water pipes, he goes to a local contractor who has knowledge of the water system. If he needs a new roof, he asks a mason from his community, whom he trusts. The money invested stays in the neighbourhood. The proximity with contractors allows the incremental development of entire neighbourhoods. Building an affordable house is a process that combines economic development and finance with construction in such a way that they cannot be dealt with in isolation of each other.

The pot of gold at the bottom of the pyramid certainly lies in a new understanding of how finance and architecture can be combined. This however, will not solve the real problem of so many social entrepreneurs. There will always be a hard line below which the market cannot reach, these are the most needy (and perhaps numerous) people all around the world. Rather than trying to push the market down to impossible levels to try and reach to the poorest while satisfying the social imperative of social entrepreneurship, it may be time to think about value generation from a totally different perspective. And this thinking can only emerge from the ground-up.

More photos of Ahmedabad here.

Yesterday we just replaced the old roof of the Dharavi Shelter, which was made with cement sheets (which contains asbestos and is widely used all over India) with Poly Al sheet a new material made of recycled Tetra Pak bricks.

The Poly Al sheets, which were donated to us by Daman Ganga, a company that specializes in all forms of recycling, has already sparked a lot of interest in Dharavi. It is slightly more expensive than fribo-cement sheets (Rs 220 vs Rs 150 per M2) but superior in every other respects. It is much healthier since it doesn’t contain asbestos. It also absorbs much less heat and is supposedly unbreakable!

We are also creating new windows and doors for better ventilation and cleaning up the backyard. The construction work has been made possible thanks to a donation by White Architects, who visited us from Sweden last September.