Design by Urban Matter, Inc.
All content © 2016 by Designwala
I watched a movie called ‘Dharavi – a slum for sale
This article, however, is not about the project that was supposed to change this slum into a skyscraper city by razing everything to the ground. Its about the $300 house, a dramatically different but an equally bizarre option. Vijay Govindrajan of Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business with Christian Sarkar, marketing expert issued a challenge in the Harvard Business Review blogEconomist
The idea seems like a good one given the fact that there are numerous examples of reverse and frugal innovation making rounds in the social entrepreneurship circles. Tata’s one lakh car being one and GE’s $400 electrocardiogram being another example. One could say houses are different though, since they are fixed in one place and warrant strong community, neighbors, light, ventilation, sanitation and adequate space to make them comfortable. Older houses carry a sense of history, memories, and air of the past. Houses also carry the signature of the owner and the place if there is the use of local materials and craftsmanship in their building process.
Why should the $300 house work then? According to this article which is a response to the NYtimes article by Matias Echanove and Rahul Srivastava, the $300 house is not just a clever shack, but answers a number of complex questions. These issues include financing, energy and infrastructure and investment etc. There are some interesting ideas like alternative energy and use of available technology that are being kept in mind. However, the idea does fall flat on its face as far as preservation of the community is concerned. Advising a community on how they can build their own houses versus using them as a test subjects for a prefabricated house are two different things. Introducing township amenities such as shopping, retail areas and commercial office spaces cannot replace the microcosm of businesses that thrive within slums. Slums like Dharavi have rich industries in textiles, pottery and printing where a huge number of products are exported to western countries. Some of the houses are passed down through generations and the urban landscape in not a grid of similar looking houses but a organic mesh of community, people, businesses and social life. One wonders how ‘one house fits all’ approach would respond to an environment like that.
The problem is not just a issue in developing nations. Public housing and transformation plans have failed again and again in the US. Cabrini Green Projects in Chicago is a good example of an ambitious idea gone very wrong. The trend towards mixed income, low rise housing has shown more success rate so the $300 house might be the solution the slums of the world were looking for. However its tough to forget an interesting story that I read in the Knowledge Wharton blog – the Tamil Nadu government built low income housing for milkmen who were squatters and without housing. Once the houses were ready and the milkmen moved in, they came to a realization that the buffaloes gave a lot more milk when they were housed in the quarters and were cosy and comfortable which meant that the milkmen went back to being homeless and the buffaloes lived in the low income housing. Not the scenario the government had envisioned while cutting the ribbon on this not so cheap housing project.
That said, there are millions of people in India living under the poverty line with very little access to safe and secure housing solutions. Some slums have better living conditions, communities and business versus others. The time is right to rethink low income housing in India but I wish it wasn’t as cut and dry as Mukesh Mehta’s high rises and Vijay Govindrajan’s one house fits all solution. Sanitation, running water, security are human rights that should not be denied to any one irrespective of their financial status. The poor should be able to vote on what works for them, where they want to live and how they want to run their businesses. Ideas generated in ivy league schools for the poor, should be a way to open a dialogue with them. Prefabricated housing has a eerie postwar, disaster relief, apocalyptic ring to it, I am sure the brilliant minds in Dartmouth and other architecture and business schools can do better by using community input, local resources and a deep insight into the history and habits of people they are addressing.
More Links on the topic
Tata Group’s $720 flatpack houseThe company that brought us the world cheapest car is now creating the worlds cheapest house. TATA, one of India's largest corporate houses is trying to create the world's cheapest house. This comes right after the $300 house by Vijay Govindarajan an [...]
Panel discussion on Parallel Urbanism Panel discussion topic - Parallel Urbanism : local people editing local spaces Panelists - Lina Srivastava, Jyoti Hosagrahar, John Gerarci Date - Feb 28th at Wix Lounge NYC The panel on Parallel Urbanism : local people regulating local s [...]
INK 2013 | All That MattersCalloh!Callay! I finally made it out to INK. Well, InkLive to be accurate, but what the heck. Joy all around when I managed to score a press pass to cover the event. So I hopped onto the night train with the Jaaga crew, and found myself back in K [...]