Abstract
This essay looks at the theoretical meaning and practical implications of a much-
used and abused notion in urban planning and development circles, that of ‘informal
settlements’. In Mumbai alone over seven million people supposedly live in them.
Yet, what is ‘informal’ about these settlements is not all that clear, especially in the
broader context of a city where land tenure and occupancy rights have been histori-
cally contested across the housing spectrum. Besides, from an architectural, urban
planning, and development point of view, the notion that habitats can be ‘informal’
evokes imaginaries of both crisis – implying the need for urgent and radical action,
and anti-conformism – which explains the appeal that ‘informal settlements’ have
for design students and scriptwriters alike. After reviewing classic literature on infor-
mality, focusing notably on Keith Hart’s original conceptualization of the ‘informal
economy’ and the way it slipped into the more vague and confused notion of the
‘informal sector’ and from there went to defi
ne entire settlements, I propose a few
alternative concepts such as ‘enformality’, ‘homegrown neighbourhoods’, ‘neigh-
bourhoods in-formation’ and the ‘tool-house’, all based on observations of so-called
‘informal settlements’ in Mumbai
