Editorial Viewpoint
Community colonization
During the discussion on "Living across the City: Community housing in the Metropolis,” part of the National Gallery of Modern Art’s (NGMA) A Zoroastrian Rhapsody program that coincided with the holding of the exhibition "Across Oceans and Flowing Silks: From Canton to Bombay, 18th-20th centuries” from December 26, 2013 to February 13, 2014 moderator Kaiwan Mehta stated that the communal dwellings presented "a series of problems (and) is not a celebrated concept.”
The nomenclature of community housing "makes us look at (them) in a particular way,” said the writer and editor of Dumas India. Perhaps he was referring to the stereotype of the baug Parsi being an easygoing, fun loving, middle-class individual — a privileged recipient of community largesse. With flats changing hands at prices as high as six crore rupees (US $ 9,52,381) for an apartment in Cusrow Baug (minus a lift and on leave and license) and lakhs of rupees being spent on renovation, the image of community housing being for the poor has fast disappeared. Even the Bombay Parsi Punchayet has set an upper monthly income level of Rs 90,000 for applicants desirous of acquiring an ownership flat in their colonies.
When the foundation stone was laid for the first Parsi colony on March 31, 1889 on Falkland Road under the supervision of Khan Bahadur Muncherjee Cowasjee Murzban, the future "inmates” as they were crudely referred to, were envisioned to be "poor Parsis who could not cope with the competition and crowding in Bombay,” notes PhD doctoral candidate Simin Patel who is completing her thesis on colonial Bombay with an emphasis on the Parsis. Land for the two buildings was donated by Framjee Dinshaw Petit.
Murzban, an engineer employed in the Government of Bombay’s Public Works Department (PWD) is referred to as the "originator of the idea of colonization among Parsees and Indians,” as the inscription on his marble bust states, notes Preeti Chopra’s A Joint Enterprise: Indian Elites and the Making of British Bombay. Murzban spoke of "The poor members of our community (who live)... in narrow lanes and dark alleys in scanty, ill-ventilated, ill-lighted and badly drained quarters. We therefore realized the necessity of removing them from their slums and providing them with suitable dwellings in healthy quarters.”
"There is a tendency to assume that modern housing for Parsi use took the form of the gated colony (but) a review of the vocabulary used to describe the structures reveals an array of descriptors that were interchangeably and indiscriminately used — ‘tenements,’ ‘quarters,’ ‘poor houses,’ ‘chawls;’ the larger space was described as a ‘plot,’ ‘site,’ ‘ground.’ It is unlikely that the plot was bounded by a wall,” notes Patel. The gated colony concept took root in the 1920s, states Nikil Rao (House, But no Garden: Apartment living in Bombay’s suburbs 1898-1964.)
Patel believes that by segregating themselves, the Parsis developed a ghetto mentality. She argues that ethnic colonies isolate people and does little for the city.
Noted architect Kamu Iyer at the panel discussion referred to the Mancherji Joshi Dadar Parsi Colony as being both exclusive, only for Parsis, yet inclusive, the public could use their hall, gardens, etc (barring The Dadar Parsee Colony Gymkhana). Joshi, a civil engineer with the Bombay City Improvement Trust, used his influence to have larger plots and gardens allocated for the Parsis. The Colony was also the first in the city to be built using RCC (reinforced cement concrete), noted Iyer.
In the neighboring Hindu Colony the plots are smaller and the flats comprise rooms but are not demarcated as bedroom, kitchen, hall, etc as in the Parsi Colony. The Hindu Colony is not exclusively for Hindus. The nomenclature was adopted because the residents felt that if Parsis could have their own colony so too could the Hindus similarly term their space, said Iyer. (As an aside he also mentioned that people referred to themselves as East Indian not because they came from the east but to bolster their chances of employment in the East India Company!)
Iyer contrasted the openness of Dadar Parsi Colony with the gated, Colaba based Cusrow Baug where the general public cannot avail of the gardens or other amenities. While contributing to the architectural heritage of the city, Iyer felt the south Bombay colony made no other contribution.
"An iconic building does not make a great city,” he noted, pointing out that despite the Taj Mahal being situated in Agra the city was far from great. "The measure is the fabric,” what makes a city interesting, he observed. Different typologies of buildings, tenements, koliwadas (colony of kolis or fisherfolk), gaothans, chawls, baugs were preferable to a landscape of "hideous high rises... The Parsi and Hindu Colonies in Dadar should have been declared a heritage precinct a long time ago... now it is too late.” Bombay was not a planned city, Iyer averred. Mehta spoke of how Bangalore was not a city one wanted to walk about in.
Art and heritage conservationist Pheroza Godrej who introduced the panelists spoke about the absence of public art in the city. Aside from statues, there was precious little. The Parsi colonies and concentrations are similarly bereft of any public art.
The notion that high rises accommodate a large number of people was debunked by conservation architect Vikas Dilawari during a talk at the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute on March 6, 2013. The declining population of south Bombay, despite a spurt of high rises, lends credence to his argument.
Dilawari observed at the NGMA panel discussion that the Rent Control Act prevented surplus income being available to maintain and repair the buildings that eventually become decrepit. Hence the clamor to tear down the old structures as versus spending money to repair them. He pointed out, however, that in Murzban Colony (named after Muncherjee Murzban) at Lal Batti, old houses were restored at a cost of only Rs 800 a square foot.
At the 10th World Zoroastrian Congress in December 2013, developer Boman Irani had pointed out the advantages of high rises offering basic and additional facilities to residents. In the 2011 edition of Nature’s Keepers, noted architect Hafeez Contractor stated that as land becomes scarce, the only solution is vertical growth. "We have to devise how a new city is going to live. We have to have streets at a higher level; we have to have cities in layers.”
Contractor is the architect for the proposed redevelopment of Nowroz Baug. Here the plan is for the present cluster of 13 buildings to be torn down in stages and four 33-storey buildings to be constructed in their place. The residents now living in "chawl style” flats would be provided with all the modern amenities with an elevated garden, adequate car parking, playground, etc. Iyer concedes that chawls are "poor living places” but they provide "a lot of social interaction and assistance…there is a sense of security and belonging.”
But eventually the fate of the Nowroz Baug redevelopment will not be determined by the virtues of chawls versus high rises or community living versus cosmopolitan residences. The deciding factor is: Will there be enough Parsis to avail of the ownership houses to be put on sale to cover the cost of the project? The future of community housing will depend on availability of residents, not money or accommodation.
While the pros and cons of community housing are considerable, the final decision on redevelopment should be a combination of the residents’ interests and the requirements of the city.
The nomenclature of community housing "makes us look at (them) in a particular way,” said the writer and editor of Dumas India. Perhaps he was referring to the stereotype of the baug Parsi being an easygoing, fun loving, middle-class individual — a privileged recipient of community largesse. With flats changing hands at prices as high as six crore rupees (US $ 9,52,381) for an apartment in Cusrow Baug (minus a lift and on leave and license) and lakhs of rupees being spent on renovation, the image of community housing being for the poor has fast disappeared. Even the Bombay Parsi Punchayet has set an upper monthly income level of Rs 90,000 for applicants desirous of acquiring an ownership flat in their colonies.
When the foundation stone was laid for the first Parsi colony on March 31, 1889 on Falkland Road under the supervision of Khan Bahadur Muncherjee Cowasjee Murzban, the future "inmates” as they were crudely referred to, were envisioned to be "poor Parsis who could not cope with the competition and crowding in Bombay,” notes PhD doctoral candidate Simin Patel who is completing her thesis on colonial Bombay with an emphasis on the Parsis. Land for the two buildings was donated by Framjee Dinshaw Petit.
Murzban, an engineer employed in the Government of Bombay’s Public Works Department (PWD) is referred to as the "originator of the idea of colonization among Parsees and Indians,” as the inscription on his marble bust states, notes Preeti Chopra’s A Joint Enterprise: Indian Elites and the Making of British Bombay. Murzban spoke of "The poor members of our community (who live)... in narrow lanes and dark alleys in scanty, ill-ventilated, ill-lighted and badly drained quarters. We therefore realized the necessity of removing them from their slums and providing them with suitable dwellings in healthy quarters.”
"There is a tendency to assume that modern housing for Parsi use took the form of the gated colony (but) a review of the vocabulary used to describe the structures reveals an array of descriptors that were interchangeably and indiscriminately used — ‘tenements,’ ‘quarters,’ ‘poor houses,’ ‘chawls;’ the larger space was described as a ‘plot,’ ‘site,’ ‘ground.’ It is unlikely that the plot was bounded by a wall,” notes Patel. The gated colony concept took root in the 1920s, states Nikil Rao (House, But no Garden: Apartment living in Bombay’s suburbs 1898-1964.)
Patel believes that by segregating themselves, the Parsis developed a ghetto mentality. She argues that ethnic colonies isolate people and does little for the city.
Noted architect Kamu Iyer at the panel discussion referred to the Mancherji Joshi Dadar Parsi Colony as being both exclusive, only for Parsis, yet inclusive, the public could use their hall, gardens, etc (barring The Dadar Parsee Colony Gymkhana). Joshi, a civil engineer with the Bombay City Improvement Trust, used his influence to have larger plots and gardens allocated for the Parsis. The Colony was also the first in the city to be built using RCC (reinforced cement concrete), noted Iyer.
In the neighboring Hindu Colony the plots are smaller and the flats comprise rooms but are not demarcated as bedroom, kitchen, hall, etc as in the Parsi Colony. The Hindu Colony is not exclusively for Hindus. The nomenclature was adopted because the residents felt that if Parsis could have their own colony so too could the Hindus similarly term their space, said Iyer. (As an aside he also mentioned that people referred to themselves as East Indian not because they came from the east but to bolster their chances of employment in the East India Company!)
Iyer contrasted the openness of Dadar Parsi Colony with the gated, Colaba based Cusrow Baug where the general public cannot avail of the gardens or other amenities. While contributing to the architectural heritage of the city, Iyer felt the south Bombay colony made no other contribution.
"An iconic building does not make a great city,” he noted, pointing out that despite the Taj Mahal being situated in Agra the city was far from great. "The measure is the fabric,” what makes a city interesting, he observed. Different typologies of buildings, tenements, koliwadas (colony of kolis or fisherfolk), gaothans, chawls, baugs were preferable to a landscape of "hideous high rises... The Parsi and Hindu Colonies in Dadar should have been declared a heritage precinct a long time ago... now it is too late.” Bombay was not a planned city, Iyer averred. Mehta spoke of how Bangalore was not a city one wanted to walk about in.
Art and heritage conservationist Pheroza Godrej who introduced the panelists spoke about the absence of public art in the city. Aside from statues, there was precious little. The Parsi colonies and concentrations are similarly bereft of any public art.
The notion that high rises accommodate a large number of people was debunked by conservation architect Vikas Dilawari during a talk at the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute on March 6, 2013. The declining population of south Bombay, despite a spurt of high rises, lends credence to his argument.
Dilawari observed at the NGMA panel discussion that the Rent Control Act prevented surplus income being available to maintain and repair the buildings that eventually become decrepit. Hence the clamor to tear down the old structures as versus spending money to repair them. He pointed out, however, that in Murzban Colony (named after Muncherjee Murzban) at Lal Batti, old houses were restored at a cost of only Rs 800 a square foot.
At the 10th World Zoroastrian Congress in December 2013, developer Boman Irani had pointed out the advantages of high rises offering basic and additional facilities to residents. In the 2011 edition of Nature’s Keepers, noted architect Hafeez Contractor stated that as land becomes scarce, the only solution is vertical growth. "We have to devise how a new city is going to live. We have to have streets at a higher level; we have to have cities in layers.”
Contractor is the architect for the proposed redevelopment of Nowroz Baug. Here the plan is for the present cluster of 13 buildings to be torn down in stages and four 33-storey buildings to be constructed in their place. The residents now living in "chawl style” flats would be provided with all the modern amenities with an elevated garden, adequate car parking, playground, etc. Iyer concedes that chawls are "poor living places” but they provide "a lot of social interaction and assistance…there is a sense of security and belonging.”
But eventually the fate of the Nowroz Baug redevelopment will not be determined by the virtues of chawls versus high rises or community living versus cosmopolitan residences. The deciding factor is: Will there be enough Parsis to avail of the ownership houses to be put on sale to cover the cost of the project? The future of community housing will depend on availability of residents, not money or accommodation.
While the pros and cons of community housing are considerable, the final decision on redevelopment should be a combination of the residents’ interests and the requirements of the city.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive