The minimal FSI currently exists in the Island city of Mumbai and its Suburbs is surely affecting the city’s housing sector and quality of life of people living there. The city boasts one of the highest population influxes (12 million population-highest in India) than any other Indian city and in this current scenario it is farce not to think of increasing the FSI. Currently Mumbai needs around 5,47,434 dwellings but the available number is a meager 72,906 units. According to a report published by Cushman and Weikfield in 2012 Mumbai is expected to witness additional demand of 189,000 units for mid and high-end segment in the next 5 years while the supply in these categories will be 140,806 units. Of the total demand in these two segments, majority (70%) will be seen in the mid-priced housing, but will remain underserviced by 50% in the next five years due to outdated planning legislations. With huge housing backlog along with expected rise in population to 33 million in 2033 from the current 18.9 million it would seem a far-fetched dream to realize its housing shortage. It is not practical to displace slum dwellers or sidewalk dwellers to the fringe area of Mumbai as the infrastructure and transport facilities are not completely developed. The famous fiasco is TMC Malusare project which was not sold out despite of its affordability to middle income and low-income buyers.
Increasing FSI will also curb the highly volatile TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) market which is presently controlled by few developers. At present, only projects in the island city enjoy an FSI of 1.33. In the suburbs, it is 1; for additional FSI, developers have to buy TDR, mostly sold at a premium. There has been a 100% rise in property prices in Mumbai in recent years, primarily because of the high cost of TDR. If a builder buys TDR at Rs 5,000 per sq ft, he will have to add another Rs 5,000 per sq ft towards the cost of land and construction. This forces him to sell flats at Rs 12,000 per sq ft even in a distant suburb. Once there is a decision to increase FSI, there would be less dependency of TDRs to develop housing projects in Mumbai
However, many activists and policy makers caution that increasing FSI will only worsen the quality of life in Mumbai due to crumbling infrastructure. They opined if FSI is higher in the other developed or developing economies, it is because the cities in those economies possess superior infrastructure, including better public transport and open spaces. In my opinion with higher FSI there should be better development plans for quality infrastructure to handle increasing FSI.
With burgeoning population Mumbai not only needs luxury housing but also low-income, middle –income and affordable housing solutions and one way to do that is to make better use of the existing land with a higher FSI. Yet, while increasing FSI is a welcome approach but it should be done in such a way that it adds to the quality of life of a people in Mumbai. The state must look at improving the city’s infrastructure so that Mumbai can rank as one of the best cities in the world.
This post is part of the “Great FSI Debate “. What’s your view? Submit your opinion to info@theurbanvision.com along with a bio & pic.

photo credit: rajkumar1220

This is emerging as a series on how Indian Cities perform and think on foreign urban solutions to local problems. While the BRT continues to draw mixed responses, there is another city-changing idea in the pipeline. This time the urban development minister ‘moots’ the idea of increasing the FAR in Delhi, on the lines of Shanghai, in order to ‘boost housing stock and revive some old commercial areas’ in the capital.
This Shanghai fascination has been around for a while. We have heard the same FAR argument for Mumbai some years back, which drew some very interesting responses from urbanists. The PGA (Public Ground Area), BUA (Built-up Area per capita) and the Net/Gross Density were some of the factors used to analyse the interrelationships between urban densities and the quality of life (See Shirish B Patel). But the major factor emerging in the case of Delhi, as correctly pointed out by many architects and planners, are the urban infrastructure services like power, water, transportation and the likes. While all these factors are important decision making factors on the vertical growth question, there is one other perspective which might help make more sense of what the city is currently and what is best for it to become what it has to.
Consider this illustration by Alain Bertaud.

The City-Form Perspective
Delhi currently has a population of around 18.2 Million spread over an area of 700/SqKm at a density of 25, 940 people/SqKm. While our city of fascination, Shanghai has a density of 30,315 people/SqKm which it achieves with an FAR of 13 as compared to 1.2 in Delhi.
In 2021, Delhi is expected to have a population of 22 Million spread over an area of 980SqKm at a density of 22,500/SqKm. This area would be comparable to that of London which has a density of 6,240 people/SqKm!
If seen from the perspective of an existing city form, and city-form alone, the status of Delhi isn’t anywhere remotely comparable to that of Shanghai (though in terms of urban density it is). Delhi’s city-form seems to be more on par with that of London, Berlin or New York (though not in terms of urban densities). If one is able to follow my line of facts, what we see here is a mismatch between a city-form and an urban density. And any decision on the growth of such a situation has to first accept this essential condition because ‘a city’s spatial structure significantly reduces its range of development options.’
A high-density low-rise built-up situation cannot accommodate a uniform FAR increase. It will only densify the city beyond any acceptable limit of health, freedom or opportunity. High Density in small area is good. Low density in small area is acceptable. High Density in large area is not. Low Density is large area is bad.
If the argument is for increasing the housing stock, then any planner living with the current times would agree that the aim should be to increase the housing options and not just the FAR. The problem with such government ‘decrees’ is that, they ultimately tend to be executed in letter than in spirit. If one were really serious about the growth of Delhi, then there are many more sensible solutions than simply increasing the FAR.
What the city needs is a better quality of life, a range of housing options, an efficient public transportation, a sustainable and environment friendly network of urban services, and of course sincere governance. Excepting the last aspect, i believe the solution to all lies in design and technology. My focus here is to demonstrate how design can offer solutions which the government is seeking in regulation alone.
The idea of “Blending Density” represents a critical counterpoint to the FAR syndrome. Since it advocates for a heterogeneous distribution of buildings on a lot or block basis, it replaces the homogeneity of FAR-based development with a calculated massing diversity that responds to and evolves from the desired character of its physical context. For instance, when aiming to ‘revive old commercial areas’ a uniform increase of FAR for the existing sub-parcels within a block would result in expected chaos. While the same target FAR, if it is achieved through an intelligent redistribution of the sub-parcels through consensus will result not only in an efficient use of land but also tuned to a more desirable urban form. This sort of redevelopment model also gives opportunities to the urban services which have never had a chance of upgradation due to implementation obstacles, which in turn makes them an obstacle to ‘growth’.

Indeed we have had a start (gone bad ultimately) in Hyderabad which does not specify an FAR, but just the maximum heights of buildings. This seems to be a far better regulation methodology than the conventional FAR application because it offers more control of the city-form. If such a regulation policy were supported by context based lot-by-lot design of neighbourhoods responding to their physical, historic and cultural context we would have had a far better Hyderabad than we have now. But somehow a design intent just doesn’t find a place in regulation and planning policies in Indian cities.

Urban Design is a very powerful tool which can give a manageable control over urban densities through form-based regulation, at the same time ensuring that the city gets what it needs at the time when it needs it. Simple land-use zoning has shown us that it can take decades for a city to understand that it is going in the wrong direction, while an urban design approach enables leaders to take informed decisions on the growth of a city.  In the words of Alain Bertaud, ‘the choice therefore is not whether the FAR should be brought in line with other large cities of the world, but how much and where should the FAR be increased and what other measures should be taken to support this increase.’  Indian cities cannot be regulated by letter anymore, they need to be regulated by context based form. Our cities today need a lot more than just zoning and regulation, they need design.

Mumbai is one of the most populated cities in the world living on a tiny footprint, as compared to its international peers. The statistics and unique and shocking- a FSI or living space/household of 2.8 sqm and public open-space/ person less than 1sqm. Mumbai’s  current socio-economic importance will ensure that it remains a leading Indian city for some time- but in terms of livability, it consistently ranks in the bottom 20^th percentile of cities worldwide. This is posing to be a drag on its ability to attract skill and capital.
The solutions need to address the average resident and not only the richest. This is not a compromise as successful cities around the world also are the lowest in economic disparity- it takes a cross-section of society from the service-class to investors to make a city successful and attractive. The solutions are clear and they need to considered in an integrated manner:
a.       Increase FSI: Low FSI is artificially pumping real-estate cost and increasing density. Mumbai lacks quality space and this is exacerbated by its shabby state of buildings. As a result, Mumbai commands one of the highest prices in the world, marginalizing most residents. Low FSI is artificially increasing density and simultaneously forcing the city to sprawl outwards- draining investment, talent, life, culture, diversity and affordability out of the city.
b.      Create more public space, including streets: Streets and open spaces- the public realm- is where city life plays out, where commerce happens, and where the personality of a city is established. Public space is a matter of quality of life, livability and commerce. Streets are not only arteries of movement but places to live, work and play. All this can be created in collaboration with private sector with the help of incentives.
c.       Increase land area: Satellite cities and towns should be strategically added (what happened to Navi-Mumbai?), which are connected by transit and designed as self-sufficient centers with mixed-uses.
d.      Move those Masses: The benefits of large cities are lost if people cannot move easily from one part to another- such large cities can end up as insulated small towns stuck to each other (even now you almost need a visa to go to Town). A connected city will allow movement of skill and capital, energizing its various neighbourhoods and centers. Transportation solutions need to be efficient, comprehensive, and affordable. Land limitation in Mumbai dictates that a major component of the transportation equation will be an expanded train/ subway network. Roads are important as they carry a cross-section of modes including pedestrians, cyclists, autos, taxis, trucks and buses (cars are not an important part of the solution). Bottle necks should be minimized (its amazing how Khar subway bottleneck holds Bandra at ransom) and east-west connectivity improved.
e. House those Masses: 60% of Mumbai lives in informal housing- also carelessly branded as slums. Most times these houses are made with as much love, effort and taste- and house residents who hard-earn a living with as much a zest for life. The residents include domestic workers, auto-rickshaw and taxi drivers, shopkeepers, policemen and school kids and these areas host commercial activities from recycling to retail to light-industry. This informal housing is responsible for supporting Mumbai’s quality of life. It is a failure on the state’s part to not be able to house this resident majority. Legalizing settlements will reduce squatting and take pressure off the public realm. Living in one-story houses, however small, is a luxury in Mumbai and puts pressure on land. Slum redevelopment is a move in the right direction. Rather than treated as ghettos, new settlements/ redevelopments should be integrated into the community. Many current initiatives are oversimplified as providing 220 sf in the sky. Housing needs to be designed and provided in a manner that responds to the current advanced living patterns in these settlements- like shared kitchens, mothers overseeing kids playing on the streets while working, optimally sized streets and open spaces which are “watched” by houses, and flexible commercial spaces.
This post is part of the “Great FSI Debate “. What’s your view? Submit your opinion to info@theurbanvision.com along with a bio & pic.