See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235941565

Enclave urbanism in : An actor-network-analysis of urban (dis)connection

Article in Geoforum · June 2013 DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.02.009

CITATIONS READS 49 522

1 author:

Bart Wissink City University of Hong Kong

94 PUBLICATIONS 729 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cities and the Super-Rich View project

Reassembling Asian Cities: Urban Controversies, Critique, and the Urban Studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bart Wissink on 07 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Please cite as: Wissink, B. (2013) ‘Enclave Urbanism in Mumbai: An Actor-Network-Theory Analysis of Urban (Dis)Connection’, Geoforum, 47, June, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.02.009

Enclave Urbanism in Mumbai: An Actor-Network-Theory Analysis of Urban (Dis)Connection

Abstract The built environment of Mumbai is changing rapidly since the early 1990s. Condominiums and office towers shoot up everywhere, shopping malls and multiplexes are opened, train lines, motorways and other infrastructures are planned and built, and informal settlements grow. These changes are easily read in terms of the alarmist narrative on urban fragmentation that depicts ‘enclave urbanism’ as a tool of urban elites. Employing the forces of globalisation, these elites supposedly enhance their dominance through the development of walled and well-connected enclaves, while pushing away underprivileged groups. Analysing the Towers project in Mumbai, this paper employs Actor-Network-Theory to reflect on the adequacy of this narrative. In Mumbai, urban enclaves turn out to be nothing new. And while globalisation and economic liberalisation do support the emergence of new urban enclaves, domestic characteristics like the existing urban landscape and its objects, the structure of the Indian state, land and building regulations, corruption, mafia, and the business-politics nexus structure the specific local expression of urban enclaves. We conclude that urban objects like the Tardeo Towers create and bind groups of stakeholders in new and surprising ways. While some elites do benefit from these urban enclaves, others resist, and underprivileged groups do benefit as well. Therefore, the study of ‘enclave urbanism’ has to move beyond a general alarmist narrative, towards precise empirical research into the causes and effects of the emergence of specific enclaves in specific local contexts.

Keywords Enclave Urbanism, Mumbai, Actor-Network-Theory, Controversy, Segregation, Gated Community

1. Mumbai – The Making of another Enclave City? “Ten years ago, the perception of this area was totally different. It was a mill workers area. It was very central in Bombay, but it was also always a poorer part. Just like you do not want to go into a slum, you did not want to get into the mill area as well. All of that has changed over the last decade”. We are talking with the owner of one of the former cotton mills in Mumbai’s , or the ‘mill village’. Until the start of the 1980s, this 2000-plus acre area was home to some sixty mills that had been the basis for the city’s emergence as an industrial centre in the nineteenth century (Chandavarkar, 1994; Dwivedi, 2006). At its peak, the area housed some 250.000 mill workers, creating a unique workman’s culture 1

(Chandavarkar, 1994; D’Monte, 2006). But this is all history. With the demise of the textile industry in the 1970s, the Bombay Textile Strike in 1981-82, and new land regulations, one mill after another closed. Since the early 1990s, mills started to be controversially redeveloped into high-income apartment buildings, shopping malls, leisure spaces, and office towers, changing the Mill area beyond recognition.

Figure 1: Recent landmark projects in Mumbai

The Mill area developments are part of an endless list of new projects in Mumbai 2

(Figure 1). These include office areas like Mindspace in , the Complex between Bandra and Kurla, and the Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City in ; mixed use areas like various former mills in Lower or Hiranandani Gardens in ; housing projects ranging form the glitzy Tardeo Towers to the middle-class Mittal Housing Enclave in peripheral ; new public spaces like the Bandra seafronts; and infrastructure projects such as the Bandra- Sealink, the metro from Versova to Gatkopar, the JV Link Road, and the new JNTP harbour East of the city. And there are many more plans: amongst others for two Special Economic Zones (SEZ’s) in Navi Mumbai encompassing a new harbour and a new international airport, trans-harbour links, eight more metro lines, and numerous housing, office and retail projects. Together, these new developments contribute to the transformation of the urban structure of Mumbai. This transformation was kick-started after the 1980s, when economic liberalisation ended a decennia-long national economic policy of import substitution (Panagariya, 2008). The enhanced integration of in the world economy coincided with the rapid expansion of new middle classes (Varma, 2007). The majority of the current developments mainly seem to cater to the consumption preferences of these emerging groups. Many of these new developments are physically separated from their surroundings through walls and gates. Mumbai’s urban transformation is thus easily read in terms of alarmist studies of the fragmentation of cities in the post-industrial society. These studies argue that previously integrated cities transform into ‘archipelagos of enclaves’ (Graham and Marvin, 2001; Hajer and Reijndorp, 2001). The result is an explosion of walled urban enclaves with exclusionary collective spaces – gated communities, shopping malls, cineplexes, and office towers – and connecting premium infrastructures. Meanwhile, the quality and quantity of generally accessible public spaces diminish. While there are different explanations for the emergence of urban enclaves, one dominant narrative presents urban elites as the driving force. Employing the forces of globalisation, this interpretation sees elites enhancing their dominance by building urban enclaves. The related exclusion of underprivileged groups threatens social integration and inclusion. Mumbai is thus depicted as another global city experiencing the dual processes of urban fragmentation and exclusion. It is the aim of this paper to reflect on the theoretical underpinnings of this narrative, and on its relevance for Mumbai. This aim results in the following research questions: What are the driving forces behind the emergence of urban 3 enclaves in Mumbai; and how does this relate to dominant narratives of ‘enclave urbanism’ in the urban studies literature? The next six sections will answer these questions. After this introduction, the second section presents the discussion on ‘enclave urbanism’ in the urban studies literature. The third section discusses the Actor-Network-Theory as a relational framework that enables a pluralist study of the emergence of enclaves in specific local settings. Section four then explains methodological choices that guided the research in Mumbai. Section five introduces the historical context of urban transformation in Mumbai, followed by a detailed analysis of the Tardeo Towers controversy in section six. Answering the research questions, section seven concludes the paper.

2. ‘Enclave urbanism’ and the ‘Narrative of Loss’ The urban studies literature describes today’s city with apprehension. For Amin and Thrift (2002: 32) the idol of this literature is the “authentic city, held together by face-to-face interaction whose coherence is now gone”. They describe a ‘narrative of decline’ that interprets social cohesion as the result of propinquity, and assumes that in today’s cities with diminishing propinquity, social cohesion is disappearing. Likewise, Forrest and Kearns (2001: 2126) observe “a common belief that there is less social cohesion now than in some (usually) unspecified period”. These alarmist views on urban cohesion are mirrored in recent discussions on public space in terms of decline and loss (Hajer and Reijndorp, 2001). Thus, Crawford (1999: 23) signals a ‘narrative of loss’ that “contrasts the current debasement of public space with golden ages and golden sites.” This “inevitably culminates in the contemporary crisis of public life and public space, a crisis that puts at risk the very ideas and institutions of democracy itself”. Over the last two decades, the interpretation of cities through this ‘narrative of loss’ is refuelled by ideas about the ‘splintering’ of cities, and the related radicalisation of class segregation. Well-quoted authors like Davis (1992), Castells (1996) and Graham and Marvin (2001) suggest that the transition to a post-industrial or network society is supported by new techniques of spatial separation adding to the already problematic nature of cities. The result is a new form of urbanism – enclave urbanism. Cities are restructured as patchworks of enclaves, each home to a selected group or activity (Douglass, Wissink and Van Kempen, 2012). Essential to this emerging ‘enclave urbanism’ is the introduction of social, legal and physical boundaries, often relating to differentiated regimes of governance. 4

‘Enclave urbanism’ emerges in a context of neoliberal policies in which comprehensive planning for the public good is substituted by incremental projects aimed at private gain (Harvey, 1989; Graham and Marvin, 2001). Concentrated investments in (semi) private spaces, often protected by walls and gates, attract elites and maximise capital accumulation. New premium infrastructures organise these scattered ‘enclaves of prosperity’ into well- connected networks. Meanwhile, public spaces suffer disinvestment and provide refuge only to those unwelcome in premium network spaces. Thus, the rich actively separate themselves from the poor, trading public space for the pseudo public spaces of malls, golf clubs and gated communities. As a tool in the hands of elites, ‘enclave urbanism’ thus creates new forms of inclusion and exclusion. While the books and articles that express this alarmist narrative use diverse vocabularies, they do share common assumptions. ‘Enclave urbanism’ is presented as a recent phenomenon, relating to the emergence of a post-industrial or network society. Furthermore, pointing at the global spread of gated communities and shopping malls, urban enclaves are portrayed as general urban forms with similar characteristics around the world. There is strikingly little attention for differences between urban enclaves in different places, or for the specific ways in which these relate to and are influenced by local contexts (Douglass, Wissink and Van Kempen, 2012). Next, globalisation and neoliberalism are seen as the main institutional factors behind ‘enclave urbanism’; elites are presented as main driving actors within this setting; and underprivileged groups are depicted as the losers, pushed away into residual spaces. Lastly, ‘enclave urbanism’ is seen as negative (Merrifield, 1996; Crawford, 1999; Amin and Thrift, 2002; Coutard and Guy, 2007). On the one hand, enclaves might hinder face-to-face interactions between groups and thus threaten community, solidarity, and democracy. On the other hand, they are linked to the provision of services, and exclusion from enclaves can thus mean exclusion of services (Graham and Marvin, 2001). While this alarmist interpretation of urban restructuring receives much support, it is criticised as well. Some question whether urban transformations really result in a new urbanism (e.g. Hannigan, 1995). Others present alternative interpretations of the emergence and social effects of new urban enclaves and premium networks, for instance in the themed issue on ‘Placing Splintering Urbanism’ in this journal (Coutard, 2008; see also Coutard and Guy, 2007; Douglas, Wissink and Van Kempen, 2012). The discussion on gated communities is a case in point. From a general definition of gated communities, the literature observes a 5 global spread of gated housing estates. Much attention is given to the explanation of this global phenomenon. Cséfalvay and Webster (2012) discern at least four such explanations: gated communities result from a fear of crime; they are caused by a secession of the successful; they result from a ‘gating coalition’ of developers, local governments, and middle-class homeowners organising a ‘flight from the blight’; or they are the result of neoliberal economics stressing the private provision of club goods through gated communities. Strikingly, none of these explanations do pay much attention to variations between gated communities and their effects. And they are inadequate to interpret differences between countries (ibid). While the ‘narrative of loss’ informs a considerable part of this literature, some publications do not share its alarmist interpretation. For instance, the above-mentioned club goods perspective suggests that gated communities can provide services more efficiently, since they resemble club economies (Webster, 2002; McKenzie, 2005). And some authors do address the fact that gated communities should not be interpreted as an American export, since they take on various forms for different reasons in different places (Glasze, Webster and Frantz, 2006; Le Goix and Webster, 2008). Still others argue that it might be possible to limit the detrimental effects of ‘enclave urbanism’ (McKenzie, 2003; 2011). However, this alternative literature forms a striking minority next to the abundance of alarmist writings on ‘enclave urbanism’. And a debate on the different positions behind the emergence of gated communities is remarkably absent. It is not surprising therefore, that Cséfalvay and Webster (2012) argue for more precise empirical research. The ‘narrative of loss’ has played an important role by generating attention for the social effects of ‘enclave urbanism’. In view of its emancipatory cognitive interest, it is in principle not possible to prove this narrative ‘wrong’ (Habermas, 1967: 188). But its general relevance for specific places should be questioned. Now that there is attention for ‘enclave urbanism’ as a global phenomenon, and general theories have been written, it is about time to trade the general nomothetic approach of the ‘narrative of loss’ for ideographic research into the unique characteristics of urban enclaves and their social effects in specific city-regions (Hannigan, 1995: 204-205; Graham and Marvin, 2001: 417; Coutard, 2002: 173; Amin and Thrift, 2002: 32; Kenna and Dunn, 2009: 812). After all, local settings might determine urban forms and their social consequences as much as globalisation or neoliberalism (Marcuse and Van Kempen 2000; Parker 2009: 111). What enclaves do exactly emerge and why? Which actors do support this? Who is excluded and how? And what are the effects? Answering 6 these questions necessitates an additional analytical framework.

3. Relational Views of ‘enclave urbanism’ The research that underpins the alarmist interpretation of urban restructuring is informed by the idea that social changes go hand in hand with spatial transformations. The strong point of this perspective is its attention to the ways in which social processes structure space and vice versa. In Castells’ (1996: 410) words, “Space is the expression of society. Since our societies are undergoing structural transformation, it is a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that new spatial forms and processes are currently emerging”. In this relational view, space is not a neutral podium on which social life is played out: spaces and social practices are inherently related (Gregory and Urry, 1985; Asbeek Brusse and Wissink, 2002; Murdoch, 2006). In current times of rapid social changes, the importance of this relational perspective cannot be overstated. However, some of the assumptions of the ‘narrative of loss’ deserve scrutiny. As we argued above, an adequate research framework for research into the emergence of ‘enclave urbanism’ and its social effects in specific cities has to be able to bring local variations between forms of ‘enclave urbanism’ in view. Urban enclaves like gated communities should not be approached as black boxes that are the same everywhere; instead we should see how these urban forms relate to social practices in specific places (Coutard, 2002). Research should study how globalisation is moulded in and through local contexts, potentially creating varying local outcomes (Marcuse and Van Kempen, 2000). It should analyse the micro- practices through which this reorganisation actually takes place. And it should question the bi-polar division between elites as driving forces and ‘underprivileged’ groups that lose out. After all, identities have become very fragmented in today’s metropolis, and ‘underprivileged’ groups are not always pushed away easily (Merrifield, 1996). This implies that an analytical framework for the study of ‘enclave urbanism’ should remain relational, but at the same time should be capable to show how, on the one hand, varying coalitions drive spatial restructuring, and on the other, how this is structured by institutional settings. In that way, we open up a space for the discussion of the specific local social effects of ‘enclave urbanism’ as an alternative to the negative interpretation associated with a ‘narrative of loss’. Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) is one of the perspectives capable of this task. According to Bruno Latour, ANT focuses on relations between human and non- human actors. While studying scientific theories and technologies, he shows that ‘things’ 7 actively influence the social and natural world. “I want to (..) dispute the project of providing a ‘social explanation’ of some other state of affairs” (Latour, 2005: 1). Latour wants to replace ‘social’ explanations of theories and technologies by a perspective that shows how associations of social and physical objects emerge together. A social explanation only becomes convincing after the acceptance of these associations. In similar vein, urban forms like urban enclaves cannot be solely explained from the work of social actors: these actors themselves also emerge as part of associations. Social factors – like actors or structures – can only be reconstructed as meaningful explanations of urban enclaves after the acceptance of these associations. Therefore, urban research should focus on this process of the production and acceptance of associations. With its stress on the role of objects in social processes, ANT criticises a decontextualised definition of actors like ‘elites’ or the ‘underprivileged’. Actors and their interests do not exist apart from associations; they are the result of association building and emerge during this process. Therefore, groups, actors, or society have to be analysed and explained as a result, just like objects, theories or urban forms and the same is true for institutions. In view of the fundamental role of objects and technologies, ANT calls these objects actors as well. ANT does not deny the difference between human and non-human actors, but at the same time it does stress that in the study of developing associations, both have to be treated symmetrically. Only when associations have been accepted, will some actors be perceived as organising and others as organised. To stress again: research has to focus on this process of the production and acceptance of associations, which ANT calls ‘translation’. From an ANT perspective, cities or city-regions are interpreted as a restless and shifting abundance of actor-networks or associations that emerge through the transformation of earlier associations. This perspective accords more attention to the multi-faceted and ephemeral character of cities than the structuralist interpretation of cities as layered spaces that express subsequent modes of production. At the same time, however, through attention to non-human objects, this perspective stresses that actors and their agency emerge with the acceptance of associations, thus overcoming the problem of individualist perspectives that assume actors and their interests as pre-existing. ANT therefore stresses the pluralist character of coalition building between humans and non-humans. Urban enclaves have to be interpreted in relation to the associations with which they emerge. They are related to specific actors and their positions that are formed together with 8 enclave spaces. Urban enclaves thus are not general urban forms that emerge everywhere, but are part of specific socio-spatial associations or assemblages that need to be studied empirically. Yes, enclaves like gated communities and shopping malls and the connecting premium infrastructures might emerge in many places, but their precise form, meaning, functioning, and effects have to be studied in relation to the associations with which they emerge in specific cities. ANT warns us that we should let go of preconceived ideas about involved actors and their interests. Therefore, we have to let go of the assumptions of the ‘narrative of loss’ about elites, underprivileged groups and social effects of ‘enclave urbanism’. Instead, we have to let actors tell their own stories regarding new urban enclaves, for instance in Mumbai.

4. Researching ‘enclave urbanism’ in Mumbai How should we study the formation of associations concerning new urban enclaves in Mumbai? ANT suggests that we focus on controversies. In the ANT terminology, “the word ‘controversy’ refers (..) to every bit of science and technology which is not yet stabilised, closed or ‘black boxed’ … we use it as a general term to describe shared uncertainty” (Venturini, 2010: 260). When looking at urban controversies, the object of ‘science and technology’ can be replaced by ‘urban space’. Controversies then are debates surrounding urban spaces and actors that have not yet been determined; they have not yet been stabilised while associations are being made. It is the moment that translation is taking place: the process of space in the making and not the resulting ready-made space (Latour, 1987: 4). Controversies involve all kinds of actors, display the social in its most dynamic form, are reduction-resistant (actors dispute almost everything), are debated, and entail conflict (Venturini, 2010: 261-262). Of course, there is a multitude of controversies in a city like Mumbai. It is therefore very relevant that Venturini (ibid: 264) suggests four criteria for the selection of controversies: study controversies that are hotly debated, that take place in the present, that are not boundless, and that are public and not ‘underground’. How should we describe controversies? As mentioned above, the first rule is to let go of preconceptions about actors and their interests and of the nature of artefacts. Instead, ANT suggests to ‘follow’ actors when they ‘emerge’: “just (..) look at controversies and tell what you see” (ibid: 259). Of course decennia-long critiques of empiricism show that this is not easy. Luckily, Callon (1986) has proposed a scheme for describing controversies, discerning four phases. In the first phase (problematisation) a focal actor establishes his point of 9 departure and plan of action concerning an issue. He or she identifies other actors (human and non-human) and defines their goals. During the second phase (interessement), focal actors try to bind others, convincing them of this point of view and this description of interests. Thus the association becomes less vulnerable to competing focal actors and their associations. Various means ranging from negotiations, plots, calculations, persuasions, briberies and violence are used to reach this goal. When interessement is successful, the third phase (enrolment) is achieved. Spokespersons are now willing participants of the association. Potential questions on actors and their goals are now transformed into clear statements perceived as truths. During the last phase of mobilisation constituencies that were represented by spokespersons accept the association. Associations consisting of human and non-human actors disappear in ‘black boxes’ and are not questioned anymore. After successful translation, “only voices speaking in unison will be heard” (Callon, 1986: 223). However, associations can always be questioned, black boxes can be opened and associations have to be maintained (Callon and Latour, 1981). This paper applies this analytical framework to study the emergence of urban enclaves. Mumbai is well fit for such research. As we argued above, development here seems to be in line with the ‘enclave urbanism’ literature. Therefore, in spring 2009 Kalma Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute of Architecture in Mumbai and Utrecht University (The Netherlands) jointly organised a Mumbai studio. During this studio a mixed Indian and Dutch group of four faculty and eighteen students analysed various themes: private housing, public housing, informal housing, service economies, manufacturing, road infrastructure, rail infrastructure, retail, leisure, and utilities. The project made an inventory of urban enclaves on each of these topics. Striking case studies were selected, and the related controversies were analysed. This resulted in about one hundred and thirty interviews with relevant actors. This paper presents outcomes of this Mumbai studio. It will start with an introduction to the historical development of Mumbai. Against this background it will then discuss one controversy – the Making of Tardeo Towers – in great detail. Obviously, limiting the description to one case study makes the analysis vulnerable, since results might be coincidental. However, in line with ANT we believe that great descriptive detail is necessary to really understand the process that eventually leads to the acceptance of an association, and with this the emergence of an urban enclave. Why did we choose to discuss the Tardeo Towers controversy? At the start of this section we summarised Venturini’s four criteria for controversy selection. However, these 10 are rather difficult to meet in Mumbai: in almost all cases a substantial part of the dealings take place behind closed doors and might involve bribes or violence. And since we were only in Mumbai for four months, it was also impossible to study present cases alone, necessitating analysis of historical data. Against this background, the Tardeo Towers controversy has some advantages. First, it is at the core of discussions on new urban enclaves in Mumbai. The towers house some of the most exclusive new residences in Mumbai. They are clearly separated physically from their environs. And their development set the stage for the subsequent high-rise boom. Second, as a result of extensive newspaper coverage, a substantial part of the discussion on these towers has taken place in the spotlights. It is thus possible in this case to mend the difficulties of studying controversies in Mumbai. Newspaper articles form an important source for this paper, and they will be quoted extensively (with ToI referring to the Times of India). Additionally, as noted earlier, we have conducted many interviews, and as a rule we tried to speak to all parties involved in the controversy. However, we were not always successful, and the nature of politics in Mumbai is surely in part to blame for this. For instance, after an introductory meeting it turned out to be impossible to speak to the developers, SD Corp, who claimed that they are “naturally media shy”. In any case, in view of the highly sensitive nature of urban development in Mumbai and the crucial importance of confidentiality, the following pages will not explicitly mention these interviews or our contacts. But the interviews have helped to interpret the material in the newspaper clippings that are referenced below.

5. A History of Separations and Connections Mumbai – capital of and chief city of western India – is a relatively young city (Tindal, 1992; Dwivedi and Mehrotra, 2001). The Southern part – Bombay Island – initially consisted of seven separate islands. North of creek, were the city’s suburban sprawl nowadays extends for more than 40 kilometres, only some villages existed. Under Portuguese occupation, Koli fisherman mainly populated the islands. Then after 1661, the East India Company began connecting the islands. With continuous immigration, limited space soon became a major theme. Segregation has always been a central characteristic of Indian cities. Typically, they were organised as collections of separate castes, sects and religious groups. As printing presses, railways and administrative technologies only arrived with the British, there were few means to enlarge circles of association. And in contrast to universally accessible public 11 bodies in Europe, urban associations maintained strict rules of entrance (Khilnani, 2004: 115). The British administrative procedures supported this parochial social organisation. When the idea of a nation of Indians emerged, divisions between groups along communal lines solidified exclusionary identities. In India, cities thus did not loosen social bonds of traditional community (ibid: 124). In Mumbai, this fragmentation of communities was expressed spatially as well. The early trade city was characterised by a clear separation between the English and a native town, separated by an Esplanade (Tindall, 1992: 19). Internally, the native town was divided into various quarters where groups with different castes, regional backgrounds and religions lived separate. The growth of the Industrial city after the Cotton boom in the second half of the nineteenth century further reinforced segregation. It did create clear separations of economic groups with increasing differences between the rich factory owners from specific political communities – Marwaris, Parsi’s and Sikhs – who resided in areas like , and the poor workers in Girangaon, the Mill city (Ardarkar and Phatak, 2005). These workers remained clearly segregated in communities of religion, region and caste, thus preventing the emergence of strong class associations (Khilnani, 2004: 140). Independence in 1947 brought hope for a better future, with the expectation that democracy would enable the poor to pursue their interests. But reality turned out to be very different. In the 1960s, Prime Minister Indira Ghandi nationalised major banks, oil companies, and coalmines, and imposed tight restrictions on foreign and domestic companies. Furthermore, she introduced tight ceilings on urban landholdings and enacted a Rent Control Act that froze rents at the 1947 level. The measures turned out to be devastating for the Indian economy (Khilnani, 2004: 61-106), and resulted in large-scale corruption (Piramal, 1996: 3-84). Mumbai’s industrialists became an essential financial source for political parties, so industrialists and politicians drew ever closer (Khilnani, 2004: 138). The concurrent need for unchecked sources of violence supported a growing underworld (Mehta, 2004: 201-270). For Bombay, the combined effects of this toxic mix have been dramatic. Various land regulations have resulted in very high land prices (Bertraud, 2004). Without low-income housing, most immigrants that started to come to the city in droves depended on slum housing and the informal economy. By 1980, an estimated 55% of the population lived in slums, with another 15% in substandard worker housing (‘chawls’). The very poorest, live on pavements, sewage pipes and under flyovers. Meanwhile, the rich occupy different enclaves 12 in the city: old money around Malabar Hill, the film world on Pali Hill, and newer professional wealth in the towers. Physically separated from ‘chawls’ and slums, they nonetheless border them; Mumbai’s enormous densities make it hard for the rich to escape the poor. With the city exploding to the North and East, lacking infrastructure investments and high real estate prices meant that emerging middle classes had to travel long and very uncomfortable hours. The urban development has thus been very different from the high expectations before Independence (Khilnani, 2004: 139-140). Trade union activism was successfully countered by a mobilisation along vertical lines of clientage, and Mumbai remained a city of parochial enclaves of caste, religion and region. These communities targeted small advantages like electricity supply or a water tap in return for vote banks. In this context the Shiv Sena movement, founded in the mid-1960s as an anti-immigrant party fighting for the rights of Marathi workers could easily emerge. Polarising Mumbai’s citizens, the Sena instigated riots, especially targeting Muslims, resulting in further segregation (Mehta, 2004: 201). It coincided with an increased presence of Marathi in the city, as symbolised by the renaming of Bombay to Mumbai in 1997 (Khilnani, 2004: 141-144). But the economic situation in India has changed dramatically. Economic liberalisations since 1991 resulted in an average national economic growth of more than 6% (Panagariya, 2008). The related expansion of new middle classes created the need for new residential and leisure spaces. This coincided with the introduction of new regulations for real estate development. In Mumbai it became possible to transfer development rights from the south of the Island city, where rent control limits urban renewal, to the north. Furthermore, mill owners were controversially allowed to redevelop cotton mills in the central island city for commercial purposes (D’Monte, 2002; 2006). And in a 1995 initiative, Maharashtra State created the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) (Gandhi, 2007: 3835; SRA, 2008). The SRA can declare any area a slum. With the consent of 70 per cent of the slum dwellers, developers can then start a slum redevelopment scheme. In exchange for free 225 square foot rehabilitation tenements for slum inhabitants, they can sell incentive floor space on the open market. The Tardeo Towers are the result of such a scheme.

6. The Tardeo Towers Controversy In April 2010, the developers of the 60-storey Imperial Towers in Tardeo at last receive permission to start handing over flats to buyers. This ends an eight-year battle over the 13 redevelopment of the M.P. Mills. Since the start, this mega-project by SD Corp, a joint venture between constructor Shapoorji Pallonji and entrepreneur Dilip Thacker, had become symbol for the inherent tensions in the development of new Mumbai. The towers are amongst the first of many super high-rises that are transforming the city beyond recognition, while causing alarm over the effects for already inadequate infrastructures (figure 2). And India’s ‘highest residential blocks’ are one of the most exclusive residential developments as well, with prices ranging from two to eight million dollars. Designed as an enclave for the very rich, the project boosts a range of private facilities, including dedicated water tanks with two-day reserves, sports facilities, guestrooms, restaurants, a business centre, and a home theatre. In a city full of slums and substandard public infrastructures, surely these towers represent the enclaves of exclusion that the ‘narrative of loss’ criticises.

6.1 Making the Tardeo Towers plan An ANT analysis of the Tardeo Towers controversy shows a different picture. The roots of this controversy lay in the 1960s, when squatter families start to encroach on Cumballa Hill, a lush green hill separating up-market Carmichael and Altamount Roads from the M.P. Mills compound along Tardeo Road below. By the mid-1990s, this settlement has grown to some 2500 squatter houses on the 13 acres of the hill and the now defunct M.P. Mills Compound. In the meantime, the Compound itself has been acquired by the BMC, Mumbai’s local government, thus making the mill lands regulations irrelevant.

14

Figure 2: The M.P. Mills and the Mill area

Problematisation starts when SD Corp buys the redevelopment rights for this plot in 1997, under the then new SRA scheme. The core idea of this problematisation is that slum inhabitants have no formal housing, while at the same time space for real estate development is too limited. SD Corp commissions architect Hafeez Contractor to make a design that fits in with various regulations (e.g. for setback, free space, fire truck access). The interactions with both slum representatives and government agencies during the design process – interessement – leads to continuous changes, eventually resulting in a design with two towers of 60 floors and 122 apartments each – including two five-storey penthouses for both developers. The towers stand on top of a podium that houses 1300 parking spots and a range of amenities. This podium necessitates the excavation of parts of Cumballa Hill. The enormous height of the towers results from bonus Floor Space Index (FSI) that is part of the SRA scheme to be sold at market prices. This helps finance the rehabilitation of the 2500 families free of cost in fifteen buildings of up to 25 floors on the same plot. Various screening walls separate both parts of the development (figure 3). The planned building 15 duration is 30 months, excluding a third tower to be built later.

Figure 3: M.P. Mills rehabilitation plan with the Tardeo Towers

Eventually, this plan gains support – enrolment – of community leaders in the slum, which in turn results in the necessary support of more than 70% of the slum families (mobilisation). As one inhabitant explained to us under approving nods of others: “of course we know that community leaders and politicians took money, and that the neighbours in the towers will be very rich. But we do not mind, because we own an attractive property in a good location”. The plan also gains approval from the necessary government agencies (e.g. regarding fire, sanitation, environment, as well as the SRA). With information very scarce and transparency limited, it never really becomes clear how and why enrolment of these agencies is successful.

16

Various sources suggest that money power and violence play a role in these processes (see for instance Weinstein, 2008). Be this as it may, construction starts in March 2002.

6.2 The emergence of a counter association It soon turns out that mobilisation has not been complete, when dissidents voice complaints. The general background of this dissidence is a growing discussion around 2002 over the benefits and pitfalls of the now decennium-old TDR scheme, with builders and civic planners claiming that it releases land for highly needed development, but critics complaining that it leads to haphazard and unrestrained development in the suburbs. “The civic authorities are blindly sanctioning these high-rises without taking into account the pressure on the urban infrastructure”, according to structural engineer Shrish Patel. “It’s time someone challenges this in court” (ToI, 19-7-2002). The Tardeo Towers project turns out to be this trigger. Opposition comes from actors that were not part of the small circle of groups included in the initial enrolment. It starts when the Residents’ Association of the very affluent , directly neighbouring the Tardeo Towers, sets up an action committee in July 2002. Chairperson Sanjay Ladiwala states that “preliminary studies have confirmed (..) that removal of soil from the base of the hill will weaken the foundations of the [neighbouring, B.W.] buildings, increasing risk of collapse in the event of a quake or landslide” (ToI, 29-7-2002). The residents also fear increased building traffic along the already congested Carmichael Road, complain about building noise, and express alarm over civic infrastructures like water supply and fire- fighting services. In a response, Dilip Thakkar as spokesperson on behalf of the plans, counters this criticism: “we are using American technology for our project and started work only after our plans were studied and cleared by experts” (ibid). There is no risk of the collapse of the hill as rock protruding out will be tied down through post-stress anchor bolts (ToI, 2-10-2002). Thakkar also stresses that the project has all necessary clearances. In his view, only some ‘disgruntled residents’ of Carmichael Road are trying to create problems. It soon becomes clear that Thakkar’s attempt for interessement is not successful. The Carmichael Road Residents’ Association turns out to be a very effective spokesperson, asking ‘neighbours’ to join: “We expect full support from our Tardeo neighbours to put a stop to this madness” (ToI, 2-10-2002). The Residents Association of upmarket Altamount Road first joins the protest. Home to several old business families including the Mafatlals, the Khandelwals and the Tatas, this ‘10th most expensive street in the world’ according to 17

Wealth Bulletin ironically is also the location for 's upcoming 22 storey skyscraper . The middle-class Tardeo-Haji Ali Residents’ Association joins the battle, with its secretary stating that the “towers are going to affect all of us” (ToI, 2-10-2002). The Pedder Road Residents’ Association gets involved with a member observing “a sudden spurt in high-rise construction (..). The builder lobby is cashing in” (ToI, 17-12-2002). Representing 700 low-income buildings, the Federation of Tenants’ Association decides to join on similar grounds. The Times of India sympathises, stating that a ‘Towering chaos looms over ’ (ToI, 3-10-2002). Together, this diverse coalition presents Tardeo Towers as symbol of an ill-advised and shortsighted high-rise boom. Complaints from well- connected Carmichael and Altamount Road neighbours soon result in a concerned letter on the matter of Congress president Sonia Gandhi to Maharashtrian Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh. In a parallel event, the Carmichael Road residents file a petition in the to stop the project. The groups opposing the towers also try to enrol slum dwellers into their coalition. Raj Khatri stresses that his Tardeo-Haji Ali Residents’ Association is not against the slum- dwellers. And, as Carmichael Road Residents’ Association chairperson Rajesh Jhaveri adds, “the plethora of new skyscrapers will affect all of us, including the slum dwellers” (ToI, 14- 10-2002). The slum dwellers, however, turn out to be firmly enroled in the pro-Tardeo Tower association. In a memorandum to the SRA, they state “the slum scheme is very helpful for poor people who have improved their lifestyle. We have lost the stigma of being called slum-dwellers and have become flat owners. Somehow, this appears to be unacceptable to a few rich people living on Carmichael Road” (ToI, 14-10-2002). The counter-coalition is careful to state that it does not oppose developers. It does however, raise the question why and how various government authorities gave permission without considering the impact on the environment and on civic infrastructures. “The government refuses to even show the plans to the affected residents of Carmichael Road despite laws and court judgments that such information cannot be kept hidden” (ToI, 2-10- 2002), says Residents’ Association chairman Rajesh Jhaveri. A senior hydraulic official reveals that his bureau “is not in a position to refuse water connections to new projects” (ToI, 29-12-2002). The role of the SRA particularly comes under scrutiny, with some claiming that politicians are misusing TDR to raise funds (ToI, 14-12-2002), and others criticising the sweeping powers of the SRA (ToI, 29-12-2002). Meanwhile, the Carmichael Road residents stress that excavation work started in March, while a commencement certificate was issued 18 seven months later, indicating compliance and collusion between government agencies and developers (ibid). Late 2002, mobilisation falls apart and all seems to go wrong for the Tardeo Towers project. First, SD Corp assures the Bombay High Court that it will stop excavation works on Cumballa Hill, although it continues construction. At the same time, the bench appoints an expert team to study the effects of excavations (ToI, 14-12-2002). Concurrently, the coalition opposing the plans formally joins hands with the formation of a group called ‘PACT’. According to one of the participants, the only silver lining of the construction activities in south Mumbai is that citizens and local groups come together (ToI, 17-12-2002). A day later, Maharashtrian Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh of the Congress Party stops construction on the Tardeo Towers. This move is partly instigated by Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi, who is surprised by the “chief minister’s staunch defence of the slum authority, which was actually the brainchild of the former Shiv Sena-BJP government” (ToI, 29-12-2002). Concurrently state government also grounds 43 other rehabilitation projects. Chief Minister Deshmukh, who suddenly becomes an outspoken opponent of the project, blames the SRA – the Sena-BJP ‘brainchild’ – for clearing these projects while giving concessions to real estate developers: “Everybody knows why they did it. But (..) do we have infrastructure that can handle so many and so big sky-scrappers?” (Economic Times, 13-1-2003).

6.3 The plan is saved The stay on the Tardeo Towers development ushers in a period of political dealings, more often than not behind closed doors. Chief Minister Deshmukh sets up a committee to review the impact of skyscrapers on infrastructure. However, directly thereafter he is replaced as Chief Minister by low-caste politician Sushil Kumar Shinde, in a bid by Congress party bosses – led by Sonia Gandhi – to boost prospects in Maharashtra ahead of the 2004 national and state elections (Gulf News, 17-1-2003). Four months later officials state that political priorities for the review commission are not high, with the commission needing four months for only three meetings (ToI, 15-5-2003). They also signal “tremendous pressure from the builders’ lobby to further increase FSI in the city” (ToI, 16-5-2003). Meanwhile, Vimal Shah, president of the Slum Developers Association, shows that the slum dwellers remain firmly enroled in the pro-Tardeo-Tower association, proclaiming the stay order ‘illegal’ as the SRA has all necessary clearances (Economic Times, 13-1-2003). The slum dwellers’ support also results in the Tardeo Rehab Action Committee (TRAC), 19 which claims to represent 25000 slum dwellers between Haji Ali and Nana Chowk. Referring to the stay on development, a press-note of the group signals “an attempt to appease the rich and elite class living in these posh areas” (ToI, 10-4-2003). TRAC claims that the government’s stay also affects other slum rehabilitation projects in the Tardeo-Nana Chowk belt, thus indicating that the Tardeo Towers project has become a test case for further SRA projects. TRAC organises a march to Carmichael road in support of their claims. But a Carmichael Road resident implies that the ‘poor’ slum dwellers are instigated by certain vested interests, and some imply that developers have organised the march (ToI, 11-4-2003). Meanwhile, Rajesh Jhaveri stresses that the Carmichael Road residents do not oppose rehabilitation of the slum dwellers. He announces a locally financed alternative plan, that omits the towers, but includes free of cost rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, as well as a park, hospital, school and other amenities. The plan also covers compensation of the developers for the costs that they have incurred. However, “the government committee on high rises has refused to give us an appointment” (Ibid). The draft report of the state committee studying the effects of high-rises is published in May 2003. It suggests that heights of buildings could be restricted in some ‘vulnerable’ parts of Mumbai. SRA can only clear buildings up to 70 metres; proposals for taller buildings should be forwarded to an expert committee of the BMC. Meanwhile, officials announce that the Chief Minister might lift the stay on the 44 projects, as it “cannot be sustained for long as the builders can challenge it in court” (ToI, 18-5-2003). By that time it is already clear from various meetings with builders, that for Chief Minister Shinde “vertical expansion is the solution to the city’s development” (Indian Express, 7-3-2003). Officials also suggest that, with elections round the corner, the Congress-led government does not want to antagonise the builders by prolonging the stay (ToI, 18-5-2003). It does not come as a surprise therefore, that the Chief Minister soon lifts the stay of the 44 projects, “in a decision which could have wide ramifications” (Express News Service, 20-6-2003). It also becomes clear that the committee on high-rises and its proposed expert committee will not cover the Tardeo Towers (ToI, 22-6-2003). A little later, Sonia Gandhi calls Chief Minister Shinde to Dehli for clarification. Surprisingly, hereafter it becomes very quiet. A Congress party insider concludes that “elections are round the corner. Apart from builders, who else can provide the money required for campaigning?” (Express India, 20-6-2003). We leave the detailed description of the Tardeo Tower story at this point. With many dealings behind closed doors, it is unclear why exactly the stay is lifted and why Sonia 20

Gandhi accepts this lift of stay; and it will not be possible to precisely describe how enrolment has taken place. Strikingly, after the lift of stay in mid-2003 the newspapers become very quiet as well. For instance, the Altamount Road residents directly file a separate case against the high-rises, but the unsuccessful outcomes are not reported. Meanwhile, the court case of the Carmichael Road residents turns into a lengthy process, with many research reports, and costs that have to be shared by the residents (Economic Times, 11-9-2004). With the eventual report supporting their claim, the matter is only settled in 2009 (enrolment) when the developers and residents agree on improvement works on the hill (Mumbai Property, 25-6-2009). Thus, a last hurdle is overcome for occupation of the Tardeo Tower apartments, of which 50% have been sold by August 2009 (DNA, 21-9-2009). The future of the third tower remains uncertain (DNA, 3-4-2010). Meanwhile the report on high-rises gathers dust on the state shelf (ToI, 11-10-2003), and the announced expert committee never materialises. Cyrus Gazdar, member of the state committee on high-rises, early on states that this is not surprising: ‘It suits the government to delay it, by which all projects can be cleared soon’” (ToI, 4-8-2003). As a result, Mumbai is now witnessing a high-rise boom, with streams of new and ever grander proposals, including one for a 117-storey residential tower, the highest in the world (ToI, 10-6-2010). As striking icons of economic change in India, these towers transform Mumbai’s skyline beyond recognition.

6.4 Conclusions The Tardeo Towers are a clear example of an enclave of privilege. These towers result from a dramatic controversy, in which in response to the towers and a hill, increasing amounts of actors – human and non-human – get bound up in very mixed coalitions. The towers thus become ‘mediators’, causing the emergence of all sorts of objects, groups and coalitions. Other objects like anchor bolts, Cumballa Hill, American technology and expert reports play an active role in this controversy as well. In this process, two opposing associations consisting of human and non-human actors in ever-wider spheres – eventually reaching Delhi – emerge. Both sides imply alternative views of what the towers are: a necessary solution for limited space in Mumbai and a solution for the slum problem, or a symbol of developer greed that is destroying local life worlds and quality of life, while over-burdening infrastructures. Both sides have alternative interpretations of what the slum dwellers and their interests are: ignorant victims of the strategies of developers, or necessary representatives of the underprivileged poor. And both sides view the Carmichael and Altamount Road residents 21 differently: as privileged elites that act like NIMBY activists, or as common neighbours that share the fate of their neighbourhood with others. The Tardeo Towers and other objects thus have become actors in a much broader discussion. The Tardeo Towers controversy illustrates the dark sides of urban development in Mumbai and a lacking transparency regarding relations between space, economy, politics, underworld, science, judiciary and press. It includes backdoor dealings, money power, corporatist representation by leaders speaking on behalf of others, demonstrations, court cases, written complaints, technical solutions, plans, objects, fights, profits, and unanswered questions. With many negotiations behind closed doors and transactions under the table, it is not possible to precisely follow the mechanisms of enrolment. What is clear, however, is that the association that includes the Tardeo Towers as symbol for a positive future for Mumbai and a solution for slums becomes dominant, and that black boxes are closed accordingly. The controversy substantially delayed the Tardeo Towers project, but the towers are now inhabited, 2500 slum families are resettled, and many other towers get built. Until another controversy is opened again …

7. Conclusion – Reviewing ‘enclave urbanism’ Amongst the largest cities in the world, Mumbai is a place of extremes, and the current development of new enclaves of privilege easily fits that reality. It is not surprising therefore, that these enclaves are commonly interpreted from a ‘narrative of loss’, that sees elites as driving forces behind the emergence of new urban enclaves, while underprivileged groups are presented as the losers that are pushed away. It was the aim of this paper to evaluate the relevance of that interpretation for Mumbai, and thus to reflect on the general applicability of this narrative. This theoretical aim resulted into two research questions: What are the driving forces behind the emergence of urban enclaves in Mumbai; and how does this relate to dominant narratives on ‘enclave urbanism’ in the urban studies literature? Answering these questions, it first became clear that urban enclaves are nothing new in this city of separations. Parochial political communities have always been occupying separate places in the city. In a historical context of vote banks, politicians, bureaucrats, underworld, slums, housing estates, the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the Rent Control Act, real estate developers, bribes, resilient citizens, and landlords, even the slum dwellers have remained divided in separate political and regional communities and related neighbourhoods, each fighting for their own benefits. The emergence of the new urban enclaves in Mumbai after 22 liberalisation has to be understood against the background of this historical reality. We then analysed the controversy regarding one new urban enclave – Tardeo Towers – in detail. It became clear that this elite enclave caused an expanding controversy, and that both objects and groups and their identities and interests emerged in this conflict. In the process, objects like the Tardeo Towers, the Cumballa Hill, and expert reports had an important role as mediators, causing groups to emerge and identities to form. At the same time, spokespersons actively strategized to convince others. They presented objects as ‘interessement’ devices that link actors to associations. And the institutional setting in which this struggle took place – including SRA, TDR and FSI regulations, as well as the business- politics nexus – structured this interaction, but their exact meaning and functioning was established during the process. The associations that formed in this context of developing objects, newly emerging actors and interests, and evolving ‘rules of the game’, did not consist of clear-cut oppositions, with elites supporting the new enclave and underprivileged groups opposing. Rather, mixed coalitions emerged with slum dwellers associating with developers, politicians and the towers, and mixed (low-income and elite) neighbourhood resident groups opposing the plans. In this process of the Tardeo Towers ‘in the making’, slum dwellers eventually emerged as benefactors; the SRA scheme and new high-rises as the future of Mumbai; and the Carmichael and Altamount Road neighbours as self-interested elites. The Tardeo Towers represent a clear example of an enclave of privilege. However, our analysis shows that the ‘narrative of loss’ interpretation of this enclave is not adequate. There are no pre-existing elites and under-privileged groups that fight over these towers; instead these towers help to produce these groups and their identities and interests. Also, there is no clear elite coalition that pushes away the ‘underprivileged’ in a setting of liberalisation and globalisation. Instead, the forces of globalisation and liberalisation are structured by local institutions such as the business-politics nexus, limited transparency, urban development regulations and the judiciary, and by associations of human and non-human actors, including elites and non-elites. As a result, the Tardeo Towers controversy is not fought between elites and underprivileged; rather, there is a conflict between the old and the new. At both sides of the fence, the poor and rich are linked with the Tardeo Towers in surprising coalitions, and slum dwellers are eventually part of the ‘winning’ coalition. While the opposing coalition argues that the Tardeo Towers represent bad planning (and not elite power versus the poor), the proponents stress that it represents a future solution for both rich and poor groups in the 23 city. Of course, rightful questions can be asked about the grim political means by which this controversy was settled in the end. But a reading of that process through the ‘narrative of loss’ results in mistaken conclusions and inadequate advice. These conclusions are based on one case study alone. While other case studies in our project confirmed this analysis, further research into other controversies with their own specific processes of association building is definitely necessary. But for now, our conclusion is that the ‘narrative of loss’ leads to incorrect conclusions about causes, effects and benefits. The focus of urban research should shift from an explanation of urban forms – like ‘enclave urbanism’ – as a result of the actions of dominant social actors, towards an analysis of the concurrent emergence of objects, actors and institutions in specific situations. After all, new enclaves of privilege in Mumbai benefit underprivileged slum dwellers that so far have not received much help from politicians. And the emergence of these new enclaves for the first time seems to result in general interest-based group politics in Mumbai that surpasses parochial political communities. For the future of politics in Mumbai, potentially this has far reaching consequences. Therefore, urban forms in different cities might seem the same, but the way in which they relate to emerging groups, the consequences that they have, and the way they should thus be judged can differ considerably. These conclusions have repercussions for the relationship between theory and practice in urban studies, and the possibilities and modes of generalisation as well. The ‘narrative of loss’ results from a research strategy that defines actors, roles and interests at the start, and – indifferent of local situations – then develops causal explanations. However, local circumstances turn out to be very relevant: the struggle over new enclaves in Mumbai seems be very different from, for instance, fights over gated communities in the United States. This paper shows that albeit interesting as starting point, theoretical generalisations should always be followed by precise empirical research into specific urban enclaves from a framework that can study the concurrent formation of actors, enclaves and institutions. Especially, this research should focus on the conditions under which urban enclaves have negative effects, and the possibilities to prevent these (McKenzie, 2003; 2011). The literature on urban enclaves has only started to explore these differences, consequences and possibilities (Glasze, Webster and Frantz, 2006; Le Goix and Webster, 2008; Cséfalvay and Webster, 2012). Thus, the research agenda is set.

24

References Adarkar, N., Phatak, V.K., 2005. Recycling mill land: tumultuous experience in Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly 40 (51), 5365–5368. Amin, A., Thrift, N., 2002. Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Polity Press, Cambridge. Asbeek Brusse, W., Wissink, B., 2002. Beyond town and countryside? A Dutch perspective on urban and rural policies. Built Environment 28 (4), 290–298. Bertraud, A., 2004. “Mumbai FSI Conundrum: the Perfect storm. The Four Factors Restricting the Construction of New Floor Space in Mumbai”. Accessed on April 19th 2009 at http://alain- bertaud.com/AB_Files/AB_Mumbai_FSI-conundrum.pdf. Callon, M., 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: Law, J. (Ed.) Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Routledge, London, pp. 196–233. Callon, M., Latour, B., 1981. Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In: Knorr-Cetina, K., Cicourel, A.V. (Eds.) Toward an Integration of Micro and Macro Sociologies. Routledge, London, pp. 277–303. Castells, M., 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume I. Blackwell, Oxford. Cséfalvay, Z., Webster, C., 2012. Gates or no gates? A cross-European enquiry into the driving forces behind gated communities. Regional Studies 46 (3), 293-308. Chandavarkar, R., 1994. The Origins of Industrial Capitalism in India: Business Strategies and the Working Classes in Bombay 1900-1940. Cambridge University Press, New Dehli. Crawford, M., 1999. Blurring the boundaries: public space and private life. In: Chase, J., Crawford, M., Kaliska, J. (Eds.) Everyday Urbanism. The Monacelli Press, New York, pp. 22–35. Coutard, O., 2002. Premium network spaces: a comment. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26 (1), 166–174. Coutard, O., 2008. Placing splintering urbanism: introduction. Geoforum 39 (6), 1815–1820. Coutard, O., Guy, S., 2007. STS and the city: policies and practices of hope. Science, Technology and Human Values 32 (2), 713–734. Davis, M., 1992. Beyond Blade Runner: Urban Control. The Ecology of Fear. Open Magazine Pamphlet Series, Pamphlet 23. Open Media, New Jersey. D’Monte, D., 2002. Ripping the Fabric: The Decline of Mumbai and its Mills. Oxford University Press, New Dehli. D’Monte, D., 2006. Mills for Sale: The Way Ahead. Marg Publications, Mumbai. Douglas, M., Wissink, B., Van Kempen, R., 2012. Enclave urbanism in China: questions and interpretations. Urban Geography, 33 (2), 167–182.

25

Dwivedi, S., 2006. Past times: Layers of history and culture. In: D’Monte, D. (Ed.) Mills for Sale: The Way Ahead. Marg Publications, Mumbai, pp. 76–84. Dwivedi , S., Mehrotra, R., 2001. Bombay: The Cities Within. Eminence Design, Bombay. Forrest, R., Kearns, A., 2001. Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies 38 (12), 2125–2143. Gandhi, S., 2007. Housing Mumbai’s poor. Economic and Political Weekly, 42 (38), 3835–3837. Glasze, G., Webster, Ch., Frantz, K., 2006. Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives. Routledge, London and New York. Graham, S., Marvin S., 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. Routledge, London. Gregory, D., Urry, J., 1985. Social Relations and Spatial Structures. Macmillan, London. Habermas, J., 1967. On the logic of the social sciences, 1994 edition. MIT Press, Cambridge. Hajer, M., Reijndorp, A., 2001. In Search of New Public Domain: Analysis and Strategy. Nai Publishers, Rotterdam. Hannigan, J.A., 1995. The postmodern city: a new urbanization? Current Sociology 43 (1), 152–214. Harvey, D., 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Blackwell, Cambridge. Kenna, T.E., Dunn, K.M., 2009. The virtuous discourses of private communities. Geography Compass 3 (2), 797–816. Khilnani, S., 2004. The Idea of India. Penguin, New Dehli. Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Le Goix, R., Webster, Ch., 2008. Gated communities. Geography Compass, 2 (4), 1189–1214. Marcuse, P., Van Kempen, R., 2000. Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order? Blackwell, Oxford. McKenzie, E., 2003. Common-Interest Housing in the Communities of Tomorrow. Housing Policy Debate, 14 (1/2), 203–234. McKenzie, E., 2005. Planning through residential clubs: Homeowners’ associations. Economic Affairs, 25 (4), 28–31. McKenzie, E., 2011. Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government. Urban Institute Press, Washington (DC). Mehta, S., 2004. Maximum City: Bombay Lost & Found. Penguin, New Dehli. Merrifield, A., 1996. Public space: integration and exclusion in urban life. City, 5 (6), 57–72. Murdoch, J., 2006. Post-Structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space. Sage, London. Panagariya, A., 2008. India: the Emerging Giant. Oxford University Press, New Dehli. Parker, C., 2009. Tunnel-bypasses and minarets of capitalism: Amman as neoliberal assemblage. Political Geography 28, 110–120. 26

Piramal, G., 1996. Business Maharajas. Penguin, New Dehli. SRA [Slum Rehabilitation Authority], 2008. Guidelines for the Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes in Greater Mumbai. Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. Tindall, G., 1992. City of Gold: The Biography of Bombay. Penguin Books, New Dehli. Varma, P.K., 2007. The Great Indian Middle Class. Penguin Books, New Dehli. Venturini, T., 2010. Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science 19 (3), 258–273. Webster, Ch., 2002. Property rights and the public realm: gates, green belts, and Gemeinschaft. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29 (3), 397–412. Weinstein, L., 2008. Mumbai’s Development Mafias: Globalization, Organized Crime and Land Development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (1), 22–39.

27

View publication stats