“ Today, Indian cities are comprised of two components occupying the same physical space.  The first is the static City.  Built of more permanent material such as concrete, steel and brick, it forms a two – dimensional entity on conventional city maps and is monumental in its presence.  The second is the Kinetic City, incomprehensible as a two – dimensional, this is a city….” Pg. 108.

The static and Kinetic City coexist in the same space and differ in quality and physical characteristics.  There is always a negative connotation that is attached to Kinetic City.  Made of recycled metal and second hand materials found around the city, the Kinetic city is seen as a “slum” or poor area that contaminates areas with its austere conditions and temporal qualities.  However qualities of this Kinetic city augment the “Static city” the highly coveted spaces with its monumental / traditional qualities.  How could this be?  How could the static city benefit from such a space that looked down upon in some instances?  These two cities implies a dual quality within a city that is quite fascinating.

“…..The challenge in Mumbai is to cope with the city’s transformation, not by exaggerating its dualism, but by attempting to recognize these opposing conditions that we must accommodate and overlap varying uses, perceptions, and physical forms.

In other words, the Static city can not thrive without the Kinetic City and vise versa, these two cities must merge in order to provide an innovative way of life that may create fantastic networks and other characteristics that no other city contains.