When I was at the University I took special courses, amongst others, in "infrastructure theory" and also in "micro entrepreneurship".
Whilst the former is pretty obvious, the latter translates into "informal services and industries" in "developing countries" as well as in the so called "developed countries", there meaning "black market".
But, how do these two relate to each other?
"Infrastructure theory" predicts and has so far successfully observed, that people and hence their businesses are attracted by the highest density of business opportunities in the neighborhood.
What that means, essentially is that, people will move towards places, where they can more easily earn a living.
For example, a shoemaker has a higher chance of getting a customer in areas with higher population or rather higher density of population, because the more people the more likely it is, that his services might be needed and rewarded.
Now, the better the infrastructure, the shorter the distance, in terms of time spend on traveling from point A (where you live) to point B (where you can do business). Without any working infrastructure, either for it being absent or not working reliably, people will migrate towards cities but preferably to the largest settlement within reach.
We can see this in for example in Lima, New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangkok, Saigon, Cape Town and Johannesburg. And we have seen this before, for example in ancient Rome, medieval european cities and even in the famous District Six in Cape Town.
These settlements start out as informal land grabs, initially starting out as tents or the likes. After some time, the new inhabitants find ways to make a living and you see shacks and sheds instead of tents. Some years later you'll find simple, one story brick and mortar structures, still covered with metal sheets or other cheap materials, and decades later you'll find multi story buildings with proper roofs. In some places you might see fresh water supply and even electricity. In rare cases you might even find sanitation.
What essentially is happening in these areas is evolution and development. It is kind of an organic growth. But it takes a very long time.
If we look at Dharavi, Asia's largest "Slum", dead center in the center of the city of Mumbai, we see areas that have developed really far within the 150 years of its existence. However, Dharavi does not deserve to be called Slum anymore, as it is more like a city, even though in an infant state, maybe even comparable to that of the suburbs of cities such as Paris, Berlin or London at around the end of the 18th century.
Other "Slums" around the planet show similar evolution through states of evolution. Still, it is a harsh and often dangerous live, as the environment is often close to toxic. Thats on one hand due to missing or incomplete sanitation, like open sewages and on the other hand caused by toxic byproducts of evolving industries.
But when we look closer, we will find communities, where neighbors really look out for and after their neighbors and where micro entrepreneurs can sustain with their families.
In places like Mumbai the land, which the "Slum" occupies, could be so valuable that development companies have started to buy people off their land in exchange for a flat in a newly to be erected skyscraper on that very soil.
Whilst this seems to be a gain for both, it is not.
The community thrives through close social relations between its inhabitants. If you move people further away from each other, then the community will be destroyed.
This sounds harsh, but if we turn to modern cities, we must realize and acknowledge that, people living in skyscrapers and only riding on the elevator do not know any of their neighbors, if not just a few. On the opposite, someone living in an area with only one to four story buildings are more likely to meet their neighbors out on the street, if not just on the stairway.
Yes, there is a lot of money to be saved if more stories can be erected over the same area of soil, and we need to make construction more efficient and affordable. But the value of a flat on 22nd floor can't match that of one on 2nd or 3rd in terms of quality of live. A nice view is something really nice and beautiful to have. But to be member of a community is more rewarding. The most sought after areas for living in NYC are not skyscrapers, but rather city houses or flats in 3 to 4 story buildings. Same goes for cities like LA and SF bay area. You have no chance to enjoy the shadow of a tree when living on 22nd floor. Everything you see when you look out through your windows is remote, it is so far away and you are not part of it anymore.
For this reason I am afraid, that current attempts to turn Dharavi in Mumbai into a collection of skyscrapers will do the people and in turn the city no good.
I'd like to challenge the architecture to get to a modern city, filled with greens and trees, where people want to live and can maintain a strong community.
