Mass-Produced Housing Is The Story Of The Future

Suketu Mehta, author of Maximum City, thinks that the word slum is “loaded, overloaded, and toppling”.  Every room in a slum dwelling — and every detail of it, including the walls and ceilings are custom-made, argues Mehta. Rooms in slums are quite heterogeneous, and tailored to meet the needs of the people. You can see the spirit of the makeshift community at a queue near a water tap, and even in the playground. Mehta points out that slums everywhere in the world are coloured, while public housing everywhere is monochromatic. There is some truth to Mehta's romanticisation of slum dwellers. This is probably why many of them go back to informal dwellings, even when the government builds formal public housing for them.

For much of history, many things were custom-made, including shirts and trousers. This had its limitations, and this is why more people buy mass produced clothes today. It is perhaps true that good handiwork was less expensive in the past, and hence more common, because wages have risen so much. But, there are more handmade products today, and there are more handmade products that cater to the economic elite. It is just that our choices are not restricted to hand-made products,

For much of the history, people have produced their own food by hunting, gathering or farming. In some important ways, this did leave people more satisfied. People who live near apple orchards, for example, got tastier apples. The farther fruits are from the tree, they lose their freshness and taste. But for most people, this meant an inadequate diet, and near-starvation. Much of humanity did not have access to most fresh food. Apart from the food produced in a nearby farm, they did not have access to anything much. Dried or pickled food were the only alternatives. As economist Tyler Cowen points out, many people died because of food poisoning in those days. Mass produced food and modern forms of transportation, preservation and refining saved humanity.

Slum-dwellers are in a similar situation today. Their houses may be custom-made, coloured and brimming with the spirit of the makeshift community. But life is horrible for them in many ways. Diseases are common, life expectancy is low but infant mortality is high. Roads are narrow but living spaces are too congested and dark. About 1000 people share one toilet. Water supply and sanitation are poor, if it exists at all. Privacy is a luxury, and almost non-existent. This is not an inspiring situation. Intellectuals are doing a favour by romanticising their lives.

Intellectuals have always been against mass-production. This is partly because like most human beings, intellectuals worship the past. Human beings are inclined to think that things were better in the past, even when facts tell otherwise. There are other reasons too. Intellectuals are more creative, and do not like the idea of producing things in bits and pieces, as it is done in a factory. Workers do not get a picture of the coherent whole. Many intellectuals find this depressing, because their sense of reality is completely warped. They take the benefits of mass produced goods for granted, but are bent on opposing democratisation of this process. As economist Ludwig Von Mises pointed out long ago:

“The romantic takes all the gifts of a social civilization for granted and desires, in addition, everything fine and beautiful that, as he thinks, distant times and countries had or have to offer. Surrounded by the comforts of European town life he longs to be an Indian rajah, Bedouin, corsair, or troubadour. But he sees only that portion of these people's lives which seems pleasant to him, never their lack of the things he obtains in such abundance. His horsemen gallop over the plains on fiery steeds, his corsairs capture beautiful women, his knights vanquish their enemies between episodes of love and song. The perilous nature of their existence, the comparative poverty of their circumstances, their miseries and their toils—these things his imagination tactfully overlooks: all is transfigured by a rosy gleam. Compared with this dream ideal, reality appears arid and shallow. There are obstacles to overcome which do not exist in the dream. There are very different tasks to be undertaken. Here are no beautiful women to be rescued from the hands of robbers, no lost treasures to be found, no dragons to kill. Here there is work to do, ceaselessly, assiduously, day after day, year after year. Here one must plough and sow if one wishes to reap. The romantic does not choose to admit all this. Obstinate as a child, he refuses to recognize it. He mocks and jeers; he despises and loathes the bourgeois.”

Intellectuals were against the printing press for long, because it democratised writing. Before the printing press, books were so expensive that most people did not have access to books. Similarly, they are against mass-produced housing, because they find high-rises hideous. They think skyscrapers reflect the aesthetic preferences of India's tasteless bourgeoisie. But there is no other way to make housing affordable to large numbers of people, and to allow low-income households to live in spacious houses in metropolises. Many factors prevent this from happening. As construction costs are high in India, relative to personal incomes, most low-income households cannot afford the initial investment needed for high-rise projects. Building by-laws also hinder the construction of prefabricated houses, because zoning regulations vary widely, even within a city. The single biggest factor, however, is that tall buildings are unpopular among voters and policy-makers.