FuturArc Interview

May-Jun 2018

Rahul Srivastava and Matias Echanove

Founders of urbz
by Heather Banerd

Self-described urbanologists Rahul Srivastava and Matias Echanove are the founders of urbz, a global design collective with chapters in Mumbai, Goa, São Paolo, Bogotá, Geneva and Seoul, and members in many more cities around the world. The duo bring multidisciplinary backgrounds to their research and practice—Srivastava studied social and urban anthropology in Mumbai, Delhi and Cambridge, while Echanove began in economics and government at London School of Economics before studying urban planning at Columbia University, and urban information systems at the University of Tokyo. They began working together 10 years ago through a collaboration with a local committee in Dharavi, Mumbai, where they were asked to create an alternative narrative for a redevelopment proposal. Since then, they have honed their methods through their practice in Dharavi, and applied it in numerous cities around the world through the work of urbz. They are also prolific writers on a range of urban topics and have exhibited in numerous institutions from the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) to the World Bank.


HB: The scope of work you undertake is really wide-ranging, from affordable housing and neighbourhood plans to studies, exhibitions and publications. How do you determine which projects to undertake? Is there a specific goal or objective behind your work?

ME: We are interested in neighbourhoods—how they grow, how they are shaped internally by the people living
in them, and externally by everything from economic activities to history. You need to understand the dynamics
at work—cultural dynamics, community dynamics, caste in the case of India—and the activities taking place
before you can begin to work in a place. Dharavi has always been a fascinating place, and we learn a lot
through working here. It’s a place that lets you see what happens when there is no planning, no architects
and no engineers. The space is entirely shaped around communities and activities, and so we developed an
approach based on our experience in Mumbai working with local actors and communities. In our practice, we
work at different scales, for example, we can look at how to marginally improve people’s lives by designing the
very small details of a house like staircases, stalls for vendors, and so on. But at the same time, we can do
architectural projects, and also be involved with neighbourhood plans, all simultaneously. Architecture is one
entry point that we find very exciting, but the scale and entry point don’t matter as long as we can find ways to
work in the local economy, with local actors.


RSOur activities are also framed by research projects we choose to do, so we’re keeping track of what is
happening around us in terms of economics, politics, etc., so that we are able to plug into ongoing events in
a timely manner. This way, our practical work feeds into our academic work and vice versa. Although we both
have academic backgrounds, and work with quite a lot of academic institutions, we don’t consider ourselves
academics. While we are interested in the theory and discourse around urbanism—and it is important for us to
keep on writing and engaging with theory—we like to be engaged in practice and remain free in our expression.
So we are happy to be outside academia.


HB: You initially began practising in Mumbai, specifically Dharavi, but have since expanded
to an office in Goa, and working on projects around the world. How does your approach differ
across such diverse contexts?


RSurbz is a collective rather than a single practice. We have kept our office in Mumbai extremely small and
light, but what we do have is a very wide network. We have a huge circulation of volunteers from all over the
world who come and spend time with us, learn from us, just as we are learning from Dharavi, and then some
of them go back to wherever they come from and start an urbz chapter. So we have urbz Bogotá, or urbz Seoul,
Toronto, Montreal, Geneva. It’s not a territorial expansion, but rather a multiplication of the methodology, which
people become a part of as they join our network. So each chapter is an expansion of the network. We don’t
control what happens in the urbz based in Bogotá or São Paolo—it’s an initiative taken by the team there. Our
approach is actually shared by so many people, it is not something we invented, and associating themselves
with the urbz collective makes it easier for them to start their own activities.


ME: An important aspect of creating and maintaining this network is that people actually move from one place to
the other. When we start working in a specific locality, we like to do a week-long workshop, where people come
from all different chapters to participate. As they are familiar with the method and approach, they can plug in super
easily and each brings their own experiences to the table. Then sometimes, for example, the Bogotá team comes
here for a few weeks; sometimes we go there. So that’s also the way the network of the collective is kept alive. Our
practice in Dharavi is like an anchor, where people become part of the network and then go back to their home city
and work on it. Recently, many of us went to Geneva for a workshop, from Mumbai, Seoul, Montreal and Berlin.

RS: Geneva is a special office because Matias has his own personal connections there, while activities in Goa
emerged because I happen to live half my time here. Many of our projects will emerge because people will ask
us questions about what we are doing, and through our responses, we start developing dialogues and practices.
In Goa, there has been a substantial increase in the slum population, and so naturally people are concerned,
and they come to urbz to help them understand why this is happening. We have just begun a research and
documentation process of this. At the same time, our Goa office is developing as our media space, where a lot of
our knowledge gets processed into films, drawings and exhibition formats.

ME: In Geneva, we’ve been quite lucky to be able to work with the government. At the time we started there,
about two years back, there was a shift in the urban planning process and participation of residents became
compulsory, so they were looking for help in that realm. There was a lot of discussion about participation but
very little real practice. Then, most participatory practices that existed before in Geneva—and still in many
cities around the world—are mostly round-table with sticky notes. We completely exploded that format. Our
participatory process is much more about creativity: bringing people from the neighbourhood together with
people from outside and challenging what we know, bringing in new ideas, and trying to innovate in the process.
In Geneva, these kinds of projects come as mandates from the government, and in Seoul, there is also a
favourable institutional context, but it is not something we are quite able to do in Mumbai, where we are not
able to collaborate so closely with the municipality. So it’s interesting for us to see that the practice that we’ve
developed over here can function very well within a more institutional context—it doesn’t have to be always
tactical, informal, but can also be very much formalised and integrated into existing practices.

HB: You’ve studied and written about the parallels between Dharavi and Tokyo’s mixed-use
neighbourhoods that developed organically following World War Two. Why do you think these
areas have turned out so differently while following similar methods of development? Can
these neighbourhoods be seen as models for high-density urbanism?


MERather than seeing Dharavi as a model of high-density urbanism, we see it as somewhere where the
processes at work are very obvious. These processes are also at work in many other places, which are now
considered to be informal, or slums, though they may not be as clear. From these, we observe that mixed-use,
high-density, low-rise neighbourhoods do exist, and do function in different contexts, so there is no reason why
incremental development cannot be part of what creates successful neighbourhoods; on the contrary, there’s a lot
we can learn from those kinds of processes. The example of Tokyo is interesting because we see entire districts,
which developed incrementally, and are now part of a modern city. Why does it work in one context and not in
others? It’s really important to understand that the government has a big role to play in accepting, or not, certain
forms or certain processes. In the case of post-war Japan there was a huge tolerance for emerging, mixed-use
type of neighbourhoods. And this is not the case in Mumbai, where they are seen as a problem, or in China, where
urban villages are being redeveloped. We want to make sure that the value that these kinds of neighbourhoods
and urban forms bring to the city is recognised. By comparing these to parts of Tokyo we are simply saying that by
changing your perspective, by understanding and recognising the language of urbanism in a deeper way, you will
be able to produce a template for modern urban habitats, which is far more varied and far more diverse.


 

To read the complete article, get a copy of the May-Jun 2018 edition at our online shop or at newsstands/major bookstores; or subscribe to FuturArc.

 
 

 


SUBSCRIBE TODAY
SGD 67.00*
 
6 ISSUES A YEAR
 
 
* Regular Price SGD 90.00 for 6 Issues  


FuturArc Collaborators
 
           
           
           

   
           

FuturArc Supporters