Dwelling or Dueling?

Dwelling. Dueling. Not too far.

Who is dueling?

Numbers vs. numbers. Have vs. Have-nots.

Aspirations vs. Manifestations. Humanity vs. Greed.

This chain of thought went along for a while, reminiscing all the past and recent articles pertaining to Asian cities, pointing out housing shortages, land shortages, absence of affordability, and absence of livability if there is any housing at all. While, the second part of the topic, which has quite a romantic ring to it, “Imaginations. Ideas. Aspirations”, was constantly derailing the former melancholic thoughts of absentees and shortages. Since, issues of shortages, affordability, and livability, along with achieving resilience and sustainability, have been on the table for a while, I will go out on a limb and say, these are being dealt with. However, as we go on achieving all that is on the list of goals for a better future of dwelling, dare I say, an equitable future, what has been missing hugely is the understanding of what a dwelling is. What are people’s aspirations and imaginations about a dwelling?

Dwelling and its connotation, vary greatly through the different Asian cities. These cities have a diverse cultural, political, and socio-economic background, even as they wade through the commonalities of an intricately structured, multi-layered geopolitical entity called Asia.

Amos Rapoport in his seminal book ‘House Form and Culture’ explains, “House form is not simply the result of physical forces or any single causal factor, but is the consequence of a whole range of socio-cultural factors seen in their broadest terms” (Rapoport 1969, 47). As house forms are influenced by different factors, the house or the dwelling conditions also tend to influence and nurture its inhabitants. One is reminded of the oneiric house mentioned by Gaston Bachelard in his book ‘Poetics of Spaces’ (Bachelard 1994). A dwelling is indisputably a place where we return every day to recharge, which enables us to carry on our quotidian routine. It is much more than a shelter from rain, sun, and storm. It is part of the dream, no matter what is your social and economic background. So gradually, the dwelling conditions and forms begin to reflect the cultural geography, access to opportunity and on a meta-level, equity. The peculiarity of Asian cities is their complex attitude towards traditions, cultural values, and modernity, which continue to shape their understanding and aspirations for what an ideal dwelling system should be. So,

What are the ideas and aspirations for an Asian dwelling made of?

“How do you “take in” a complicated multidimensional thing like a mountain? Or a park? Or a community garden? Or a city? Or justice? It starts with an act of imagination.” (Maddox 20115)

The imaginations of dwelling are very specific as most Asian urban societies are transitioning from a family-oriented, collective society to a more individualistic, ‘modern’ society, driven by service economy, a rapid change from an agrarian economy, in a post-colonial era. While earlier most Asian city dwellers would live in small neighborhood units, composed of 10-12 dwelling units, with a very strong sense of community, the new paradigm of stand-alone towers and ‘gated-communities’ are a challenge for a few and signs of progress for most. This is a story, which is being re-enacted from Delhi to Dhaka, Ho Chi Minh City to Hong Kong, Singapore to Shenzhen. Few dealt with the change in a rather holistic manner, like Singapore and Hong Kong. Public housing in both has enabled stable life and improved living conditions, ensuing domestic stability (Lee and Ngai-ming 2006). While others like Delhi are still struggling to grapple with reality. The reality where there is no place for the imaginations and aspirations of the have-nots. However, in a changed scenario, where our leaders and policymakers come in true terms with the need of the people, what is it, that they will encounter?

I am going to take a few steps back, to re-establish why people come and eventually settle in cities. To quote the beacon of 21st-century Indian planning and architecture, Charles Correa, “…But for millions and millions of migrants, landless labor and wretched have-nots of our society, cities are perhaps their only hope, their only gateway to a better future” (Correa 2010, 125). In this same book (A Place in the Shade) of essay compilations, Correa also mentions that people do not come to cities looking for housing, but for work. This can be further reinforced by our own observations of squatter settlements near industrial areas, construction sites, and often, close to railway lines. The last one, settlements near railway lines (at least in cities like Mumbai where the railway still forms the backbone of daily commute for the majority), gives us the second dwelling attractor: transportation, the first being work opportunities. The third one, is an affordable living condition, while the quality is often not considered, but only aspired once the rest is taken care of. If I have to paint their imagination in words, it would probably sound so:

A place just big enough for everyone to sleep comfortably, running potable water in the taps, kitchen with CNG connection and a bathroom connected to the sewage system. It would be great if there WERE one more room for the kids to study and maybe another for the relatives to crash IN. How lovely will a small balcony with few pots be! The metro station is a 5-minute walk and we have a bus stop right outside the community market.

That is all they want. Roti,kapda aur makaan[1].

A second narrative, which I have often witnessed, is the temporality of urban dwelling. Our household help has been working in Delhi for more than a decade and her plan is to go back to her village in Tamil Nadu in a couple of years, when the house she is building there, is complete. Her children will also finish school and in her words, be able to take care of themselves and make their own decisions. The draughtsman from my previous office shared a similar aspiration, of going back to his village, “taaji hawan, khula aasman, aur apna khet”[2]. This section of people who love their rural setting, was pushed to the cities due to lack of enough opportunities in their villages.

Miles away, in Ho Chi Minh City, Jamie Gillen (an assistant professor from National University of Singapore) observed a similar phenomenon of lack of permanency in the mega-city. “In my analysis, the city is a launching pad but only secondarily a destination; … the countryside is made possible (and even solidified) because of urban growth and the establishment of a middle class” (Gillen 2018, 84).

The fondness for the rural setting can be attributed to two-three factors: the family, that still resides in the villages; a sense of belonging, which roots from strong community ties; less polluted environment. With passing years and as we become more ‘developed’, community ties and a cleaner environment are gaining more and more traction, while segregated gated communities rise.

Here, I cannot stop myself from adding a bit more color to the imagination of dwelling in an Asian City.

A place just big enough for everyone to sleep comfortably … at a walking distance from the metro station or the bus station. It is nice that all the kids play together at the park and we can chat sit by the bench or keep an eye from our balcony. A few of us have started growing some tomatoes and lettuce on the rooftops. Hamara apne shehri khet[3]

So, the idea of a ‘nurturing’ dwelling unit in an Asian city would constitute of a basic serviced shelter in an inclusive community, at a walking distance from public transport and facilities, with enough open green space for all. Although, this does not complete the picture since as Asian cities are now more stratified with people, not only from the different socio-economic background but also of different nationality calling them their homes. Yet, it is the basic coat and the nuances will appear with the subsequent layers, much like the Asian cities.

However, to be able to plan, one needs a vision. A vision, which could tell right from wrong. Something, which we seem to be missing. At least, misplaced.

Honey? Did you see where I kept my vision? It is American colorED and Hong Kong shaped…

In the race to catch-up with the ‘West’ or the cartographically appropriate version, the Global North, most Asian cities lost the vision, which once used to be their signature. Humane lanes leading to courtyard housings, the streets bustling with people in the evenings, people who know their neighbors, are becoming obsolete. Take for example any old city area of the new megacities, like Beijing or Delhi. You would still find the remnants of a more cohesive community-dwelling, proudly made into living heritage sites, glorified from a distance.

One could argue a shift from a collective society to an individualistic society of smaller family units is the primary reason. Nevertheless, I would beg to differ. Yes, there has been a shift. However, shifts and changes are inevitable, but how we deal with it defines whether the change will be progressive or regressive. Individualistic society does not necessarily mean isolated living conditions or increasing disparity. At worst, they could only imply increased privacy and solidarity but with the ready option of stepping out. Rather we chose a path of mindlessly emulating the modernist theory created by and for the societies of the global north. We reached a point of increasing disparity and divided cities. Divided by highways catering to only cars and their owners, or gates separating one community from another, supposedly keeping them safe. Safe from? From the same people who provide them with the basic services without which their days will not go by.

The western modernist based planning model, of which mono-use zoning policies are a beacon, has led to mass segregation and unequal distribution of resources and opportunities. Thus, the aspirations of the ‘have-nots’ are kept on the backseat, particularly their dwelling conditions. They are often located in the periphery and/or the most vulnerable parts of the city, making access to economics and social opportunities more difficult, both economically and socially. For holistic development, regaining cultural specificity, it is paramount that when discussing dwelling, we do not equate it only to the provision of housing amenities or the availability of shelter but to its position in the larger setting of the city. This understanding of decontextualized modernity, which is based on emulating the ‘western’ concepts, has led to ‘misplaced aspirations’, both of the people and the government.

Probably it is time that our government and we, get us a pair of vision. We need to create new geographies of modernity. Trevor Hogan (Australian sociologist and academician) asks a very critical question,

“The modern Asian megacities have been absorbing trans-Atlantic technology innovations, planning regimes, and social imaginaries since at least the turn of the twentieth century, but is this simply a mimetic process or are Asian cities generating new innovations- super-adding world history-making inventions, systems, cultures, and experiences into the global urban soup?” (Hogan 2018, 288).

So, what are we super-adding? While the stage is open for all suggestions, I call dibs on going first. Given our rich cultural background, what seems best is an amalgamation of the past and the future, in order to strengthen our local identity, boost the sense of belongingness and create more equitable, transparent world cities.

Although reminiscing the past is often considered a criticism of modernity, and in its extension, development, Hong Kong might show us differently. Cecilia Chu (academician from Hong Kong) who has witnessed the rise of an activist culture in Hong Kong, notes, “A common theme running through these activities is “community ties and social cohesion”, which are seen to be the key qualities that enable Hong Kong’s economic success in past decades” (Chu 2018, 74). Over the last couple of months, we have seen a strong will and unity Hongkongers demonstrate to defend their rights and they feel no different when it comes to their cities. They want to revive the sense of place and preserve the Hong Kong’s way of life, retaining the core values, which will be a sense of aspiration and progress for future generations (Chu 2018). Unfortunately, barring a few exceptions, this sense of ownership is lacking in most of the urban dwellers of Asian cities. A part of the vicious circle, whose stages we went through, without calling them out explicitly.

Playing catch-up with a post-colonial modern world, the governments of most countries go on a modernizing/urbanizing spree. Economies are transformed overnight from agrarian to industrial and eventually to service based. Cities rise. Inevitably, people are tempted to change their line of work, forced to move to urban centers for opportunities and disparities rise. Cities feel the pressure. Some get to dwell while others duel. A few feel like they belong. Others are just passing and most are no-where, squatting. Since they do not feel the belongingness, they probably will not (read cannot) fight for an open city. Consecutively, cities become more and more inequitable. There is no one she can call her own. Meanwhile, the government continues with the copying and multiplying, all in the name of economic growth.

Can we imagine an alternate city?

The beginning of the post-independent era was very chaotic for most cities in Asia. Even for the nations, which were not subjugated to colonial rule, the turn of the century brought with it many challenges. We must admit, that Asian cities on a whole, tackled the challenges in an exemplary manner. Especially in the field of finance and commerce. Six of the top 15 cities in the Global Financial Centers Index 25 are in Asia (Z/Yen, China Development Institute (CDI) 2019). However, this leap-frogging has left out a few crucial things to factor-in, like environmental protection, widening economic chasm, and dwelling conditions in these cities. Our leaders and policy-makers chose to follow the best, the west. But they forgot to consider our history, geography, society and yes, even the political scenario. Even if we were to leave out the issues related to the quality of life, of humans and the ‘others’, the sheer quantity, a.k.a the population density of Asian cities is a challenge which needs its bespoke solution. Beyond doubt, it is an astronomical challenge to chime in the aspirations and imaginations of the billions of Asians, especially when we compare to the cities and countries of the global north. We need to take a fresh outlook towards public policy like Antanas Mockus, former mayor of Bogota, to imagine an alternative to the current Asian cities. “He reorganized public policy by nurturing a new “citizenship culture” grounded in a moral claim that human beings—regardless of formal legal citizenship, regardless of race—have dignity and deserve equal respect and basic quality of life” (Cruz and Forman 2015). Another approach is to democratize Urban Planning and Design, as Mumbai based architect-activist, P.K. Das mentions, “I believe that urban planning and design (UP&D) should be considered a right and brought to public dialogue. The democratization of UP&D would be a significant step toward the achievement of just and equal cities” (Das 2015).

Maybe, it is too much to just sit and expect from our leaders to bring about the changes. Unless we take some initiatives ourselves. In this era of NGOs and non-profits, we must take responsibility for our cities. The duel for a fair dwelling can only be fought when we all are on the same page and understand the relevance of equity for our society to progress together. Urban pedagogy is necessary. We need urban activism; much like what the Urban Social Forum in Indonesia and Nivara Hakk in Mumbai is doing, starting with the community. The journey from aspiration of dwelling to its manifestation is probably going to be a long one, but I truly believe, it is the one worth all the trouble. Especially, if we want our cities to be equitable.

[1] A Hindi phrase referring to the bare necessities of life, translated as food, clothing and shelter. [2] Fresh air, open sky and my field.

[3] Our own urban field.