Mumbai Day 29: Interview

​The following is an interview I recorded with a creative director in Mumbai, who wished to remain uncredited in this transcript. He works for one of Mumbai’s premiere development firms which is currently engaged in many projects within Mumbai, and in India as a whole. We met at his office in South Mumbai.

TC: Perhaps you could start by telling me a little bit about what you do.

A: Our company focuses on the redevelopment of very old structures, so in a way its a kind of urban regeneration task. To answer your question fully, I’ll give you a bit of background. During the second world war, the local government froze all of the rents in South Bombay and, in fifty or sixty years that have passed since, those rents have not changed. There’s been a minor improvement of twenty, thirty, forty percent over what these rents were sixty years back. So the rents are very dismal for landlords who own these properties. Obviously they’re very old now, these structures, they’re pre-nineteen forty, and many are in a dilapidated condition. At the same time they’re very densely populated. What started to happen is that, since landlords never got their market value of rent, they have no incentive to look after their buildings. The tenants are all mostly middle-income residents. If the government were to take this rent ceiling off, you would see maybe eighty percent of South Bombay move; they will never be able to afford the rent. Sort of a mass exodus, and eighty percent is a big number, because seventy or eighty percent of residents in South Mumbai live in these rent-protected buildings. 

Landlords never had any incentive to look after their properties, so they started crumbling. A couple of them collapsed, and residents were killed. So, like everything else in India, government officials wake up and shit hits the fan. The government then set up something called the Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority. They started charging repair tax to these tenants, taking the onus of maintaining the structures and ensuring their safety, because the landlords had no incentive to do it. And that went on for a while and then that failed as well, because the government is rather inept when it comes to managing long-term projects. A few more buildings collapsed, again with fatalities. 

The government then created a policy for incentives for private-public partnerships, where developers were allowed to construct developments of much greater density––FAR 3 versus FAR 1.33––and replace old structures which were dilapidated. In lieu of that, you had to give the previous tenants back their permanent accommodation free of cost. So from tenants they would become title owners of their apartment, or of their property. The remaining units could be sold at market value, to create profit and encourage developers to reform old, crumbling buildings. That’s when our company started doing business, and we are now concentrating on just these kind of redevelopments. 

So in a way it’s an urban generation. But in many ways it’s not; the city has never actually kept pace, it’s always lagged behind us. So while we’re taking congested neighborhoods and redeveloping them, these neighborhoods are remaining congested. And because these are newer buildings with more residences, they take more water, more electricity. So the density is increasing, the consumption of natural resources is increasing, but the infrastructure is not increasing. It’s still better than the rest of the country by far, as a city, but still it’s way behind what it should look like.

In terms of it becoming a city of international importance in twenty or thirty years from now, I don’t see it happening. Because to do that you need to fix the problems that are here today, which is not happening.

TC: And you don’t think there’s hope that more radical change might happen in the near future?

A: I’ll tell you hope does not arise because I can see the queue of politicians in the next fifteen or twenty years, and none of them want to do any good. If there is political will, people can move mountains. You see Gujarat, where there is political will to do good, cities have transformed drastically in five years. So in that sense, twenty or thirty years is a long time. Except I do not see on the political scenario that any leader will get enough votes to run this state and will want to do good. 

So, it’s a matter of choosing the best among the worst. Literally we have rotted as a city in the last ten, fifteen years. Nothing has happened. We’ve gone from bad to worse in ten years. Things have moved on; I’m sounding pessimistic but––think of it this way. Ten years ago, there were talks that Mumbai would become a Shanghai in the next twenty years. Ten years later, we are not even five percent closer to being a Shanghai. We’re not even close. So the same political lack of will is responsible for both scenarios. Some political lack of will will have to give way in this city. I don’t know how it will all pan out; I don’t even know if Shanghai is a good example.

TC: It seems that Shanghai has come up a lot, maybe simply because of the differing political structures between China and India, it’s so…

A: Yeah. In a way, [in China] there’s a lot of artificial growth in cities, because the government is pumping public money to generate development, and it doesn’t really care what this development might eventually become. So in the long run I think cities in India will become more self-sufficient and resilient than those in China, because it’s all happening organically and nothing is done without the involvement of stakeholders. Politically, in terms of regulation for development, we have just become slightly better last year, with new laws and regulations enacted which help drive development forward. It doesn’t fix all the problems, but it’s a step in the right direction. So in that sense we’re at least getting somewhere, people still agree there are many conflicting regulations––high rise clearance says one thing, environmental clearance says another, local planning authority says something else, and everyone should talk to each other. At least they’ve started talking. 

Until about two years ago, we would secure environmental clearance before starting construction. Many companies developed plans for environmentally sound buildings, received approval, and then went on to build whatever they wanted, completely ignoring any environmental policies or guidelines. Things like that are now changing, which is good. The pendulum has swayed in the exact opposite extreme, from being absolutely chaotic to being absolutely absurdly strict. But that’s a reaction right; every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. When the developers stretched it, it has now gone to the other extreme, and over time it will come back to a balance. So in that sense it’s a step in the right direction.

Having said all of this, I still don’t understand how the problems of basic infrastructure will be solved, I just don’t know how it will happen. Therefore, if it’s a question of a world city––what kind of world city are we talking about? Maybe money flowing from the city: absolutely, because India’s economy will grow. Quality of life: hell no. We don’t have it now, we’re not going to have it twenty years later. Happiness for people who live here: no. People live in this city because they have to, except for a very very very small percentage who like to because they have the money to. The rest can’t go anywhere else because it’s worse off.

TC: Do you think there’s still a lot of migration into the city itself at the moment?

A: People are obviously flowing here. Some of the macroeconomic things have maybe reduced that flow; one of them is this grand scheme that was brought in about five years back, from Delhi, which was a national employment guarantee scheme. It acts as an unemployment benefits scheme––I think it’s around two hundred days a year, a person living in India is guaranteed employment. It’s released some pressure from cities like Delhi or Mumbai, and you’re seeing that in the city: finding domestic help is more and more difficult, finding drivers is more and more difficult, construction costs have gone through the roof simply because laborers aren’t available. The labor component of construction has maybe increased by one-hundred percent. But still, there are tons of people pouring into the city. I remember Mumbai from ten years back. The traffic was half. The congestion was half. The number of people seemed like they were half. 

TC: It seems many others have said the best way to reduce population strain in the city, at least, would be to create incentives for people to move to other developing centers in India, and not focus only on Mumbai as a center of job creation.

A: Well, again, that’s a very difficult political issue––because India is divided into politically autonomous states, the state of Maharashtra (of which Mumbai is a part) can’t hope to create incentives in other centers by itself. There needs to be a cohesive vision here from a national standpoint. So this migration is going to happen. On a national level, migration has certainly decreased, because some states are doing well. People have found jobs closer to home. I mean, who wants to live in a city like Bombay if you’re not from here, right? It’s improving, but it’s not going to stop. Eventually Mumbai will become more important than any other Indian city simply because of the sheer amount of capital that flows through here. So these are the woes of any developing country you might see around the world. The question is whether we’ll mature in 2030, and I think we’ll need more time to see.

TC: What have been some of your greatest challenges in attempting to redevelop some of these existing sites?

A: It’s a very dirty business to be in in Mumbai, and I don’t mean in terms of illegal practices. You have to deal with not just the inherent business risks, but also with many unforeseen problems: bureaucrats writing legislation which blocks your development, residents refusing to give up their land, and many others. Often these are simply windows for these individuals to take money; they attempt to create problems in order to create opportunities to be compensated for their resolution. Things like this keep happening, challenges are many from conception to execution. In that sense, it’s a tough environment to build in. Developers also have a bad name. Even if you’re doing good work, there’s naturally a fight against any progress you might make. And then you have the pressures of civil societies––most of them are corrupt. The so-called NGOs trying to save the city also, under the table, take money to shut up. So, you have to wade your way through these things. But the return for this risk is enormous.

TC: Your firm has commissioned several starchitects for as-yet unrealized projects in Mumbai, yet these firms are often extremely expensive and aren’t cost-efficient for developers. Why commission big names if it doesn’t make immediate financial sense?

A: I believe that design can add value, in multiple ways. One very obvious way is to advertise the architect, saying, “this building was designed by Firm X, International Architect.” But that’s the smallest benefit that you can get. A well-designed building actually sells faster, and it has nothing to do with who designed it; it’s just that it’s a well-designed building for people to live in, and work in. You might get a better price for it, but even if not it will sell faster, and your return on capital is much higher. Apart from that, the architects here are cushioned into a very old style of design simply because there has never been an incentive to be creative. That’s not the case with foreign architects because there’s less work, more architects around, so designers have to push ideas constantly to get work. And that pushes them to get better and better at what they do. In a way that doesn’t happen here; in a way the customer here is dumb for an architect. 

Many firms don’t even think of design. While it’s a very small aspect of the scope of the project, it really sells. For us, to create a well-defined brand, you need to create a high-quality and unique product. The customer has the ability to discern a high-quality product from a low-quality product, and you can never assume that the customer won’t know the difference. That’s the biggest mistake you can make in any business. The customer might not know what he or she wants, but if you show them something that they have a desire for, but do not yet know exists, then it will sell faster. So that’s the logic of getting world-renowned architects to design buildings, to create products that are better than the rest, and eventually create buildings that are better living environments. In the greater scheme of things, the cost of these international architects is actually minuscule, it makes no difference in Mumbai. Here, because the price per square foot is so high, it actually really doesn’t matter. In Pune or Bangalore, it’s a big deal, but in Mumbai it’s pocket change.

TC: Has there been any discussion relating to developing properties that somehow strive to create an “authentic” Indian architecture, rather than importing Western and European architecture within the city?

A: Not really, to be honest, customers maybe don’t even want it. People want to live in modern homes with slick lines. And, to be very honest, developers don’t care. If you say that you’ll pay a developer x-many rupees per square foot for a development, simply because it’s celebrating the heritage of the area you’re developing in, he’ll say, “have you lost your marbles?” So, I think that has to come from regulation, because there is absolutely no incentive for either the developer or the buyer to want this. There is a heritage conversation committee that has been constituted in Mumbai, which is a step in the right direction. But as a pure business person I will say that it makes no difference. The concept of giving something back to society really does not interest anyone. It doesn’t really celebrate anything; if you do it people will think you’re an idiot.

TC: Your firm has engaged in several projects relating to slum re-development within the city. What is your position regarding these re-developments? Are they ultimately beneficial for slum communities?

A: Maybe this isn’t the best way to deal with slum development in Mumbai, but it’s something. One benefit of these redevelopments is that slum-dwellers are housed on the same piece of land. So they’re not actually thrown out of their land. Will they be happy in those homes? Maybe not. But at least they won’t leak in the monsoons; at least they will have permanent power and sanitation within their home. Will they derive happiness from this? I doubt it. They’re used to a different way of life. But then their kids will grow up in these environments, and they will not know what a slum life is. 

A major part of their life has to do with their flat structures: every door is always open. There’s a great social structure that thrives in these communities, which is completely thrown out of the window in a high-rise. Is there any incentive to design permanent accommodation for them, accommodation that is better than what’s being done now? Yes. Is there a financial incentive? Maybe not. Having said all of this, we’re actually constructing pretty good buildings for them. The quality is good. But beyond that, we’re not trying to capture the social networks that existing within slums.

TC: Many architects that I’ve spoken to so far have expressed a kind of frustration in capturing these social networks in more formal developments.

A: We’ve tried. But we could not get anything that was meaningful; slum redevelopment policies don’t allow you to do such things. Having said that, within the given constraints, can you somehow make this public housing better? Yes, absolutely.

TC: Do you think your views as expressed so far are representative of many developers in Mumbai?

A: I think so, though others might not be truthful. They will understand the situation, though they might give you a more rosy picture, or try and convey things in a different way. I could have answered your slum question in a very different way. I could have showed you nice images on my computer that show our intent for slum redevelopments, and how out intent is to do the best for them, but that’s all––that’s all bullshit. At the end of the day if there’s an economic incentive, people will do it. That’s the bottom line.

TC: That’s really what interested me about Mumbai in the first place; there are many large cities in developing countries, but there are very few locales where such extremes are forced together in such a small space.

A: Slums are built right next door to the most expensive properties in the world. It’s not really an anomaly; it’s been happening for decades in Mumbai. It’s simply now that Mumbai has been exposed to the rest of the world, so people are noticing and saying “wow, how can that happen.” It’s actually a support system, they support each other. Though residents who live in multi-million dollar apartments can see slums from their building, if that slum wasn’t there, their life would be very negatively impacted. And the social support system emanates from this relationship: it’s peaceful coexistence. Whatever the conflicting economic realities of their lives are, they seem to coexist. It’s been like this for a number of years now, at least thirty, forty, fifty years within the city. And nothing will change when these slums are redeveloped; they will simply move from a flat slum to a vertical slum. People will still be doing the same jobs, unless, that is, the whole macroeconomic environment of the country transforms, but that’s a very different question.

TC: And again, that will take time. I suppose the more we talk about it, twenty to thirty years for Mumbai to emerge onto the world stage is maybe too optimistic?

A: The world stage will be forced upon Mumbai, Mumbai will not be ready for it. It might just so happen that, due to economic forces and the coming importance of India in international trade, India will grow like China is. The world stage will be thrust upon the city, when it is not ready. That might happen. Will we become a world-class city? I wish, but it looks tough.