I can see from the satelite imaging of Mumbai that Dharavi is in a very desirable location within greater Mumbai. [ http://www.maplandia.com/india/maharashtra/greater-bombay/dharavi/ ] It seems to be already reasonably accessible to civic infrastructure such as schools (including the Don Bosco School and the Institute of Chemical Technology)hospitals, transport and parks.

You are right the landscape strategies of Milton Keynes deserve greater publicity.

The government intends to rehouse the residents, but only those who lived there prior to 2000. Other objections to the redevelopment by the residents include the amount of land they will be given and whether they will be able to continue their existing small businesses.

Apartently builders thinking of bidding for the project have been cautioned about “the resistance which they will have to face from the slum dwellers since everybody has so far been used to living on the ground level.” [ http://www.financialexpress.com/news/blueprint-for-a-new-dharavi/140257/ ]

So although on the face of it, the residents seem not to be opposed to the redevelopment in principle (they only object to either the loss or dimunition of existing benefits) the political whispers suggest the true situation may be more problematic.

What is the thought process behind the proposed new form? This may be due to the increased height(7 storeys) being necessary to free up land within the development area for uses other than provisions for existing residents. Which means the project has two agendas. Always a difficult starting point.

There are obvious infrastructure issues in the settlement as it exists.
[ http://www.sra.gov.in/htmlpages/Dharavi.htm ] Dharavi is built on a swamp so there are issues also with flooding. So attention would need to be paid not only to the architecture but also to locational issues which might ultimately effect the form of the development and whether it could realistically be maintained in close to its current state.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharavi ]

Art Deco has obviously been adopted as a style considered to have some relationship to existing architecture within the city and perhaps the government believes it will give the new development a more sympathetic and familiar character than a modernist style.

Considering Agenda One: Redevelopment for the benefit of existing residents.

I would not strictly advocate that the area be considered cultural heritage in the way that the Houtong’s of Beijing are. However, if there was a prevailing view among residents that they wished to preserve as much as possible the existing form and pattern of Dharvari – in the first instance I cannot see why this cannot be done. And done well.

The architectural style would then be derived from the settlement as it exists….which seems to be predominantly two storey detached dwellings with the second storey overhanging the first.

After doing a physical survey of the area it is simply a matter of considering all the issues of health and safety and infrastructure provision and working through them systematically and creatively.

Considering Agenda Two: More would need to be known about this? Perhaps it is an issue of how the project is financed? And the desire to provide additional facilities on the site, ie schools, hospital, police stations and post offices. [ http://www.homeless-international.org/standard_1.aspx?id=0:37913&id=1:32596&id=0:380&id=0:277&id=0:262 ]

Another strategy might enable these same facilities to be provided by a different model?