 but I could be wrong. What I'd like to do is turn over to you because I have a pile of terrific questions here and I've categorized them and I want to give you the opportunity to hear your voice and stop hearing my voice and me. So the first one comes from the Enrique Pinalosa fan club and there seems to be a number of members of that club. So Enrique, what I'm going to do is just read you a typical question and then if you could give a brief answer. For Enrique Pinalosa, what problems did you encounter in implementing your plans for pedestrian spaces and green parks and how did you deal with these problems? Well, there was a huge conflict because cars used to be parked. Again, the main conflict is not that I'm a car hater or anything. Cars are wonderful. But the fact is that there is a conflict between, again, for space and for money between cars and people. In most developing country cities, the most basic element of a civilized human environment which are sidewalks is lacking. And where they exist, very often cars are parked on them. So we're talking about something which is very simple, but just getting cars off the sidewalks and making some half decent sidewalks where a wheelchair could go was a very difficult war. There was a movement to impeach me. Very well financed movement by some shop owners who were used to the cars going almost into their shop. But this was, but in fact, at least in Bogota, we didn't have to do any authoritarian thing because actually it was in the law. We were only really doing what was in the law. So even though it was very difficult, the battle was very difficult, what was very beautiful is that at the end, even most of those people who opposed these processes realized it was much better that the environment had improved, that safety crime had gone down, that the sales were better than before in most cases. But it was difficult, especially this battle to take away some space from cars in order to give it to pedestrian spaces. But people in the end realized this is better. Thank you. Andy Altman, you're over here and I see that you have a question that you wanted to ask, so please step forward or get a mic. Thank you. I just wanted to actually follow up on Daryl's question because I had a very similar one on our tour yesterday of Dharavi and you see this incredibly intricate network of the informal economy. I'm just sitting here thinking that we've discussed a lot about the housing question, but the employment question and the replacement of that employment. If you think that at least maybe let's say two, 300,000 people, maybe more, we don't have a census, are working there. Let's say 300,000 people, just to give an equivalent, that is probably the size of a mid-sized city central business district or even a large city central business district, could be somewhere up say 50 to 75 million square feet if you were to take an office at 250 square feet, multiply it by 300,000 people. This is an enormous employment center that one is also talking about relocating, not just housing. So the question is to follow up is, and maybe I'd like to hear from PK and maybe from Joaquin, is what are the models for how one approaches the negotiation of the employment sector? We clearly have different models of how the housing might work in terms of the vertical development, but I'm still unclear how that complicated a network of the informal economy that seems so connected to one another, how can that be replaced and what models do we look to to even begin that process of negotiation that may occur in this redevelopment? I think that is what we are talking about. Most important is Daravi, kind of employment generation. There are about more than 800 families survive only on rag pickers. They are living there. The larger recycling industry for all of Mumbai, not only Mumbai for Maharashtra, the PVC industry is one of the best in biggest industry where even Japan could not invent a mission how to recycle the plastic thrown out. It is discovered by the people that industry is existing there. How are you going to replace that? That's not going on the first floor, it's not going to go beyond the second floor. Where is that explanation? When I'm talking about transparency is not there. When I'm talking about where these things are in your stomach. Why it is not transparent? You're talking about every information has been collected. Why it has not been published? Why the information is not clear? Most important thing is that income generation activity. What is the category of income generation activity? You have enumerated. How many leather industries? Three times the government of Maharashtra rehabilitated all the leather industries. All of them got land, Devanar, Malad, Orega. They are there. What happened to them? What are the other industries there? What industry is not existing in Dharavi which is going to be replaced? What is the mechanism of that? What is the statistic of that? How many people are having this kind of industry? What are their existing sizes? And what is going to be offered? I think most important is the minute the vibrant economy of Dharavi is gone, it will become another communal hell. That is there only because of that economy. I was telling to somebody when they visited those who are sitting here, Dharavi is a place we can sell, shit and survive. Thank you. Just a line. I think what has happened in Dharavi is that the government has been completely lured by this presentation convincing that the government is going to make 10,000 crores profit or something like that. So the point is that Dharavi has been made into a tradable model ignoring completely the nuances of Dharavi. The point is on the economic front, it is not the question of just accommodating the present economic activity but actually planning for its expansion, facilitating existing economic activity so that this economic activity which is so important is furthered and not led to or strangulated in Dharavi. I think that is the key point we need to understand and we have to make a point that mass housing or housing for the urban poor cannot be a tradable proposition. It can only be a way to seeing how living conditions, quality of life and work, that means working and living together, which is really the model in Dharavi, is furthered as a mixed use situation or context. Jose. If it helps to enlighten the discussion, I didn't mention in my presentation in 1970 the number of jobs in Ciudad Nesa were two jobs per 100 inhabitants. 1990 that number was 25. That means one job per household, local jobs. What I like to show is that in a sense housing is not actually the place where people sleep. It's actually an economic infrastructure. In those 20 years in a community that grew from 250,000 people to more than one million, there was not a single unit of housing built by the state in Ciudad Nesa. Not a single unit of housing. Nevertheless, the economy and actually the vitality that Nesa has today has nothing to do with government action or it actually has to do with a shift in how the government decides where to put in the chips, literally. So, don't build the housing, but really focus on whether those 225 square feet, which are the relocation, what I keep hearing about Dharavi, is actually going to allow for the economic infrastructure to keep on growing. Otherwise, you're actually shooting yourself in the foot. Yes, Enrique. Okay, very quickly. I just, it just occurred to me that when one reads about how London was before the trams, let's say London 1800 or something like that, it must have been overcrowded and even worse because it without sewage and it must have been very similar to, in a certain ways. So, it would be interesting to study how this evolved into what happened later. But just my big worry, again, it's not just the existing slums today. I think while we are meeting here now at this very same time, other new slums are being born in the outside of the city. So, I think developing country cities have two tasks. I mean, the population of Mumbai will be at least twice as much in 20 years or so. What is going to happen is much easier to solve to prevent the problem than to try to solve it once it's created. So, I don't know whether there is a lot of proactive activity in order to avoid future slums because even the ones now will not be able to have enough space to house all the growing population. Rakesh, you will have the last word on this. You will have the last word on this question. That's very rare. The issues raised especially about two issues I want to address. One is that the government is trying to be greedy. It seems to be the kind of allegation about the project and that's why they are lured into it. Four and a half years ago, clearly the real estate prices did not warrant the kind of premium that exists right now and the government was absolutely not interested in any premium. They were interested in better quality housing and in fact I was the one who persuaded the government that the developer should not be walking away with crazy profits instead of which you have to also try to get back something if they wind up getting some crazy profits and which is why reluctantly they accepted so on behalf of the government, I'd like to see this. This is the only project of its kind anywhere in India. I'm not aware adequately about the world but anywhere in India where income generation has been the number one priority of the project. There isn't any other project, slumber rehabilitation or others where income generating, setting up industries, setting up businesses and giving higher advantage and mileage and training and all of that is included. National Institute of Design has agreed to set up its campus in Dharavi so that the skills of the people can be upgraded. In fact C.K. Pralad says that there's fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Government is talking about building additional fortune at the bottom of that pyramid. So Dharavi is one of those things we are talking of sustaining where income generating is priority number one. Everything else is priority two, three and four and I'd just like to clarify that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions about the port? And I don't know about the port so I'm looking forward to this. Before we leave Dharavi, I think we'll never leave Dharavi, right? There's one question that an ex-Minismar commissioner Bombay has asked here. Is that since there are so many doubts raised about the efficacy of the plan for Dharavi as it stands today because there are different views, would it be useful to have a task force examine what really should happen? I know you're ready to move and this would possibly put it back. God knows how long. But since if there are differences, how do we resolve them? And are they ever fully resolvable? Whether they're resolvable. And our task force is what they are sometimes in my country a proxy for killing the project. Yeah. May I have the permission to speak? Please. Thank you so much. Well, I would like to respond to a few observations that have been made at this house. The first was a question which Mr. Sukhankar, our former municipal commissioner, had asked whether any other option to free housing is being contemplated upon. Let me because many of you have come from different parts of the world let me mention briefly that there is a free housing concept in this city and in other parts of the country in the state, not in the country, which provides the government is to provide for a free house to a slum dweller with a minimum carpet area of 225 square feet. How is it done? As I mentioned in my opening remarks in the morning that this is done through using land as a resource that a free house is provided for rehabilitation purposes and some area is allowed for free sale purposes to be exploited commercially. I'm aware that it has tremendous amount of problems and shortcomings but let me give you only a few figures for the city of Mumbai that despite all its problem this scheme called the slum rehabilitation scheme has been able to provide around 69,000 dwelling units free of cost which are today occupied by people and if I recall correctly the number of figures about 1,28,000 dwelling units are under construction so 2,00,000 approximately houses would come free of cost but this is not the only scheme that we have also now two schemes called the basic services to the urban poor and the integrated housing for the slum dwellers. Basic services to the urban poor is in the metro cities where 80% will come from the government of India, 10% comes from the government of Maharashtra and 10% comes from the beneficiary himself if he belongs to a particular community and if he belongs to the open category he contributes about 12% so that's another model which is coming up then there is also a model in which 50% comes from government of India around 40% comes from the state government in the municipal or the local authority and again the 10% contribution comes from the family which is residing in the slums so free housing is not the only scheme today there are various alternative schemes well his view is that government should move away from free housing because it's not sustainable that's his opinion and I would take the opportunity of conveying to the government the sense of this house and what suggestions have been made so I just wanted to mention that free housing is yes one of the policies of the state government but it's not the only policy we have the other schemes also the other point I would like to mention is whether the question of consent was raised that the consent of the people is very important I don't think any one of us can have even two opinions about it and as you said that both the countries and both all of us take pride in the democratic systems that we have irrespective of what the legal position is there is a legal provision saying that if government on government land is to do something then the consent is not required but that's not the way we are going to look at it let me assure this house that the consent of even people of Dharavi is going to be the most important factor in going ahead with the policies over there and it's a democracy you can't take consent for granted neither can Mr. Joachim take the consent for granted because he fought the elections recently and he lost all his candidates lost the election in Dharavi so that's a... I can't help you in that if I remember I think about four or five candidates had fought on this issue and they all lost so this is democracy very vibrant democracy but consent I can assure you will be now there is... I'm not going to the details but let me mention to you that for Dharavi there is going to be an industrial policy there is a commercial policy and there is a residential policy I'm not going to go into details of it but yes I take the sense of the house that employment is going to be the most important aspect which we need to factor into the rehabilitation process and I can assure you that it will be done Thank you very much Mr. Kerr suggested if you could carry that also to the government that an SRA project must manually include social infrastructure and open space as per the planning norms I mean I think that's extremely... we are interested in education and health and recreation Very true In Dharavi we've gone beyond that I'm talking about the SRA policy and the projects Thank you I have a couple of more questions one is about density densification to me urbanity is all about density but some people aren't comfortable with density and I'm wondering what is the perspective of government, of the advocates the NGOs on this question of densification others? Well I think the point has already been made by Mr. Shiddish Patel he pointed out that Dharavi already has one of the highest density and that the rehabilitation if it is going to have a cross subsidizing mechanism is going to add to the density and that's the issue that he has already made Well what we are trying to do since the discussion is more on Dharavi is that the free sale component is likely to be more of commercial in nature so that apart from the families which are going to be rehabilitated there I think there is some confusion about the figures you mentioned you said that I mentioned 70,000 with 236 hectares no we are talking of 144 hectares at the moment in Dharavi that is the total circumference of 236 but we are talking of 144 hectares so if we go we feel that we will go in for commercial or office space so that at least the density would fall sharply after office hours it happens for example in south in this part of the city where we are all assembled today that the density is very high during the day because it's a hub of commercial and office activity but at night or in the evening it tends to fall dramatically thank you Tony I see you there with the microphone please please stand and tell us who you are is this working? Tony Travis from the LSE picking up Henry K Penelos question about whether or not London in its evolution offers any implications for this discussion and I think there is no question that London in the 1830s, 40s, 50s was very heavily, very densely populated at levels not dissimilar to those revealed for Mumbai today infrastructure thinned that out the building of railways took people way out from the centre railways that today we see as an opportunity to re-densify cities helped take people away but in the context of the debate about social housing there's no question that social housing was built to replace slums it provided subsidised low rents however the long term implication of it has been in the London case it doesn't have to be this everywhere that that housing never had sufficient money to maintain it to appropriate standards and in many ways it traps the poor in poor housing even to today so it became reinforcing of poverty did not allow people to move on because it subsidised them in effect to remain poor that is something that definitely needs to be tackled by I think all politicians in all cities even today So Tony you raise a point that is very much consistent with the American experience and it raises the question that I think we're learning a lot from here and are we saying that poor people in concentrated communities are incapable of creating community that is both productive and beneficial to the broader society and to themselves I think what I was only saying is there is a risk of utopian housing solutions in early days in an attempt to sweep away slums that then create large concentrations of poor people which simply works against their likely capacity to develop their own lives and we now tend to think of cities as working better where people of different income levels as far as possible live in broadly mixed areas and I think that that is the lesson of some of certainly Britain's social housing worst experiments It's very helpful So we're going to have to wrap up I want to thank this amazing panel of speakers today Please join me in thanking them