This is a continuation of the earlier blog that highlighted the qualities and terminologies related to high-density planning paradigms. This blog illustrates the case of Mumbai with the high-density measure as a fulcrum for quality of life. It describes current density and development trends as a determinant to real estate escalation and loss of social opportunity. It further chalks out the urban design framework to intervene for sensitive density measures considering social dimensions.
Have you ever thought or been aware of the roles of statutory development guidelines in creating an aspired quality of life in a highly densifying city like ours?
The above inquiry is well addressed by Shreeya Date, Architect, and urban designer through her Postgraduate research work. Shreeya Date is an Urban Designer from Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute of Architecture. She is currently working as an Architect and Urban Researcher who is working to contribute towards urban planning and development in Mumbai. Her work has analyzed the correlation between planning outcomes and evolving socio-cultural aspirations with respect to urban form challenging it as insufficiently tackled in the current planning paradigms.
A city is composed of many elements primary of which are buildings. Buildings, in turn, are for purpose of housing and many other uses. Yet, the word densification is often linked to housing. Considering the growing need for housing; particularly in the context of Mumbai, city authorities plan their fiscal and development policies around housing demand and supply. We are now building cities upon the existing housing by maximizing the potential of the land. But we must ask; will the structures we are adding to the existing urban space maintain a good built environment and provide good quality of life? How close is the contingent urban realm as created by the statutory development guidelines to creating an aspired quality of life across different housing typologies in a densifying city such as Mumbai?
For example, planned neighborhoods of Mumbai have been visually distinguishable urban spaces within the city. Having come up as a result of the planning schemes such as pre-Independence BIT and later by the agencies such as MHADA, these schemes exhibit a specific form. These are typically composed of the residential apartment buildings of not higher than ground plus three floors sitting on hundreds of privately owned plots. These lie along with the most prominent networks of roadways and railways. These neighbourhoods also contain most of the civic amenities such as public schools, colleges, hospitals, community spaces, parks, sports complexes, markets etc. These amenities and are not only used by the residents of these areas but also by the populace in the neighbouring areas and beyond creating catchment areas across the city. The form of such development is attributed to the planning standards that have dictated the form of development of each plot situated within these neighbourhoods. This has been achieved by fixing the height and footprint of the buildings with respect to the open space between two adjacent buildings. (Iyer, 2014) Such a form control has created a low residential density withing these neighbourhoods. Thus, creating pockets of lower density in comparison to the other areas of the city. The city has seen a rise in population since pre-independence era. Since, there has been constant increase in housing demand. The role of the government authorities in the mechanism of provision of housing has changed. The planning mechanism is devised to appeal to the private investors who are now the largest group of housing providers. The numerous privately owned plots within these neighbourhoods make attractive sites for redevelopment due to the various incentives and concessions thus offered peculiar to such neighbourhoods. (Indorewala, 2018) This ends up densifying the neighbourhoods. Gradually adding more load to the carrying capacities of amenities and infrastructure that is crucial for not only the residents within the neighbourhood but also for the city.
In the city of Mumbai, the quality of life is a resultant of several parameters varying due to the regulated the floor space index. Presently the development regulations prescribe floor space index (FSI) for development across diverse typologies of housing that have evolved over a period of time. The relationship between FSI and density varies across these typologies varies. This variation depends on several parameters that are based on the choices made by the users with respect to the housing units they shall occupy; these parameters broadly can be summed up under the following heads: Form, Function and Connectivity. The redevelopment process is creating patterns of new density concentrations across various typologies in the city. Density is a crucial parameter while assessing the quality of life.
Although the policy lays out guidelines in the form of setbacks and open spaces, these have been ineffective in regulating the collective built form unlike in the neighbourhood. Numerous policy tweaks and concessions offered to maximize the consumption of the FSI has had an effect on the quality of shared spaces. Creating an imbalanced proportion of the shared amenities and infrastructure and the new residential density. While the concept of density as a design code is not a new concept for the city of Mumbai, it has been overcome by the present planning practice. As a result, the parameters of the Quality of life lie outside the spectrum of development norms. What happens if we then imagine density as a primary tool for shaping urban form? Can it be scaled up and included as a planning paradigm for similar neighbourhoods within Mumbai.
An amazing insight from Shreeya Date on High density parameter in seeing our cities today. Do like and comment for your views, lets make a resolution this year to promote and address urban complexities and issues tackling it towards making our cities safer and livable place for better quality of living.
You may also follow below links for more understanding of the subject.
Patel, S. (2011). Analyzing urban layouts-can high density be acheived with good living conditions? ENVIRONMENT & URBANIZATION (International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)), Vol 23(2): 583–595.
Patel, S. (2013). Life between buildings: The use and abuse of FSI. Economic & Political Weekly, 68-75.
Patel , S. B., Saluja, J., & Kapadia , O. (2018). Affordable housing needs affordable transit. Environment & Urbanization, 38-42.
PRAJA. (2014). Handbook on Urban Laws and Policies that impact Housing Vol-2. Mumbai: Praja Foundation.
other citations:
Plater-Zyberk, A. D. (2004). The Neighbourhood the district and the corridor. In P. Katz., The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community. (pp. 5-8). Newyork: McGraw-Hill.
Rao, N. (2013). Community, Urban Citizenship and Housing in. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 5-12,19.
Comments