Mumbai’s differential verticalisation: The dialectic of sovereign and technical planning rationalities

Abstract

Chinese

Heeding Harris’ call to study diverse verticalisms, I discuss four distinct planning-induced verticalisations in Mumbai by interrelating issues of power, volume and intentionality. Through a novel conceptual framework illuminating the politics of planning, I show how a dialectical tension between (political–bureaucratic) ‘sovereign’ and ‘technical’ rationalities of planning shapes each of the four pathways of verticalisation. Mumbai reveals that verticalisation can be unintended – (a) planning can fail to cognise volume (and the vertical as a dimension of significance), and also (b) lack any purposive agenda related to it. Yet, the differential treatment of social groups through sovereign planning exceptions that shape verticalisation also reveals a politics of verticality. This politics illuminates planners’ conception of the public and connects it to both the amenities and violence of the vertical life that sovereign planning’s exceptions have led to. Overall, a differentiated pattern of exceptionality emerges out of the dialectic of sovereign and technical rationality in planning practice. Sovereign (and in one case, technical) exceptions deflect, suspend and displace technical rationality at different moments along each planning pathway of verticalisation. They selectively benefit businesses and elite groups sometimes by withdrawing the very health protections for the poor that lend legitimacy to planning.

Keywords

differential verticalisation exception Mumbai sovereign planning rationality unintended verticalisation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adarkar

Phatak

(2005) Recycling mill land: Tumultuous experience of Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly 40(51): 5365–5368.

Alexander

(2000) Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(3): 242–256.

Appert

Montes

(2015) Skyscrapers and the redrawing of the London skyline: A case of territorialisation through landscape control. Articulo-Journal of Urban Research. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4000/articulo.2784 (accessed 13 July 2015).

Barros

Ng Fat

Garcia

LMT

, et al. (2019) Social consequences and mental health outcomes of living in high-rise residential buildings and the influence of planning, urban design and architectural decisions: A systematic review. Cities 93: 263–272.

Bharucha

(2022) World’s tallest slum rehab building coming up in south Mumbai. Times of India, 17 July. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worlds-tallest-slum-rehab-building-coming-up-in-south-mumbai/articleshow/92931012.cms (accessed 18 July 2022).

Bundhun

(2016) Supertall buildings lure Mumbai’s elite. New York Times, 3 March. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/realestate/supertall-buildings-lure-mumbais-elite.html (accessed 14 September 2022).

Burte

Kamath

(2017) The violence of worlding: Producing space in neoliberal Durban, Mumbai and Rio de Janeiro. Economic and Political Weekly 52(7): 66–73.

Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) (n.d.) Mumbai, India. Available at: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/city/mumbai (accessed 25 July 2020).

D’Monte

(ed.) (2006) Mills for Sale: The Way Ahead. Mumbai: Marg Publications.

10.

Domosh

(1988) The symbolism of the skyscraper: Case studies of New York’s first tall buildings. Journal of Urban History 14(3): 320–345.

11.

Ebbensgaard

(2024) Light violence at the threshold of acceptability. Urban Studies. 61(4) 669–686.

12.

Elden

(2013) Secure the volume: Vertical geopolitics and the depth of power. Political Geography 34: 35–51.

13.

Fawaz

(2017) Exceptions and the actually existing practice of planning: Beirut (Lebanon) as case study. Urban Studies 54(8): 1938–1955.

14.

Flyvbjerg

(1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Government of Maharashtra (1989) Draft Development Control Rules for Greater Bombay. Published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, 14 December 1989. Bombay: Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra.

16.

Government of Maharashtra (1991a) Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay. Published in Maharashtra Government Gazette, 21 February 1991. Bombay: Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra.

17.

Government of Maharashtra (1991b) Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay. Available at: https://portal.mcgm.gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/New%20Work/DC%20Regulation%201991.pdf (accessed 10 June 2023).

18.

Graham

(2015) Luxified skies: How vertical urban housing became an elite preserve. City 19(5): 618–645.

19.

Graham

Hewitt

(2013) Getting off the ground: On the politics of urban verticality. Progress in Human Geography 37(1): 72–92.

20.

Harker

(2014) The only way is up? Ordinary topologies of Ramallah. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(1): 318–335.

21.

Harris

(2015) Vertical urbanisms: Opening up geographies of the three-dimensional city. Progress in Human Geography 39(5): 601–620.

22.

Heller

Mukhopadhyay

Walton

(2019) Cabal city: Urban regimes and accumulation without development. In: Jaffrelot

Kohli

Murali

(eds) Business and Politics in India. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.151–182.

23.

Hou

(2012) Vertical urbanism, horizontal urbanity: Notes from East Asian Cities. In: Bharne

(ed.) The Emergent Asian City: Concomitant Urbanities and Urbanisms. London and New York: Routledge, pp.234–243.

24.

Indorewala

(2022) DCR 33: From development control to promotion. Economic and Political Weekly 57(52): 48–55.

25.

Issar

(2022) The financialisation of floor space, Mumbai 1880–2015. Urban Studies 59(15): 3150–3166.

26.

Jankovic

Ludwig

(2018) The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality. New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Jose

(2017) Hawa khaana in Vasai Virar. City 21(5): 632–640.

28.

Kalantari

Shepley

(2020) Psychological and social impacts of high-rise buildings: A review of the post-occupancy evaluation literature. Housing Studies 36(8): 1147–1176.

29.

Kearns

Whitley

Mason

, et al. (2012) Living the high life’? Residential, social and psychosocial outcomes for high-rise occupants in a deprived context. Housing Studies 27(1): 97–126.

30.

Krishnankutty

(2018a) Fragmentary planning and spaces of opportunity in peri-urban Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly 53(12): 68–75.

31.

Krishnankutty

(2018b) The Marginalisation of the spatial. In: Bhide

Burte

(eds) Urban Parallax: Policy and the City in Contemporary India. New Delhi: Yoda Press, pp.53–65.

32.

Krishnankutty

(2022) Mumbai’s orphan plan: How the EDDP 2014–34 was conceived, crafted and abandoned. In: Pattaroni

Bhide

Lutringer

(eds) Politics of Urban Planning. Singapore: Springer, pp.55–81.

33.

Lefebvre

(1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.

34.

Mathur

da Cunha

(2009) SOAK: Mumbai in an Estuary. Mumbai: Rupa.

35.

MCGB (1964) Development Control Rules: As Submitted to the Government. Bombay: Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.

36.

MCGB (1983) Draft Building Byelaws and Development Control Rules for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. Bombay: Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.

37.

MCGB (1984) Report on the Draft Development Plan (Revised) 1981–2001 for Greater Bombay. Bombay: Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.

38.

McNeill

(2019) Volumetric urbanism: The production and extraction of Singaporean territory. Environment and Planning A 51(4): 849–868.

39.

McNeill

(2020) The volumetric city. Progress in Human Geography 44(5): 815–831.

40.

Menon

(1997) Imaging the Indian city. Economic and Political Weekly 32(46): 2932–2936.

41.

Mukhija

(2001) Enabling slum redevelopment in Mumbai: Policy paradox in practice. Housing Studies 16(6): 791–806.

42.

Murray

(2017) The Urbanism of Exception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

43.

Nainan

(2008) Building boomers and fragmentation of space in Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly 43(21): 29–34.

44.

Nam

(2017) Phnom Penh’s vertical turn. City 21(5): 622–631.

45.

Pardeshi

Jadhav

Singh

, et al. (2020) Association between architectural parameters and burden of tuberculosis in three resettlement colonies of M-East ward, Mumbai, India. Cities and Health 4(3): 303–320.

46.

Roast

(2024) Towards weird verticality: The spectacle of vertical spaces in Chongqing. Urban Studies. 61(4) 636–653.

47.

Rosen

Charney

(2016) Divided we rise: Politics, architecture and vertical cityscapes at opposite ends of Jerusalem. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41(2): 163–174.

48.

Roy

(2009) Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory 8(1): 76–87.

49.

Scott

(1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.

50.

Sundaresan

(2019) Urban planning in vernacular governance: Land use planning and violations in Bangalore, India. Progress in Planning 127: 1–23.

51.

Valverde

(2011) Seeing like a city: The dialectic of modern and premodern ways of seeing in urban governance. Law & Society Review 45(2): 277–312.

52.

Weizman

(2012) Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. London: Verso Books.